Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL

[Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17th October], That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Debate further adjourned till tomorrow at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Communities (Summit Conference)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his talks with other Foreign Ministers at the summit conference.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his talks with other Foreign Ministers at the recent summit conference of members of the European Economic Community and applicant countries.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with other Foreign Ministers at the summit meeting of the Common Market countries.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with Foreign Ministers at the Common Market summit meeting.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): During the European Summit Conference last week I naturally discussed a number of matters with my colleagues from other participating countries. But the conference was essentially a meeting of Heads of State and Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, with permission, be making a statement after Questions.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: While I appreciate the difficulty that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in, can he perhaps spell out for the benefit of the House and the country something more of what is meant by the "European union" to which we have been committed by the Community?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is something which has to be worked out in each sphere of the Community's activity over the years. Nobody was anxious at the conference to use labels like "confederation" or "federation" and therefore "union" is a word which will gradually become defined over the years.
I can put it this way. There was evidence all the way through the summit conference of the desire to co-operate at every level. One of the most significant things which came out of this was the decision that the Foreign Secretaries should meet for a review of the international situation once a quarter. Therefore, we shall be closely in touch on all these matters.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind hon. Members that we have heard that the Prime Minister is to make a statement. Those who ask Questions now will be prejudicing their chances later on.

Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this conference was remarkable for how much was achieved and how many firm dates there are in the communiqué for the proposals agreed upon? Is he also aware that this has demonstrated that the nine members can reach agreement on progressive and bold policies without over-riding the interests of any of the members?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a feature of the partnership and the process of setting dates by which certain objectives should be achieved. It has been used successfully by the Six and I was glad to see it, in particular, in relation to the regional policy.

China

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his official visit to China.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall be visiting China, at the invitation of the Chinese Foreign Minister, from 29th October to 2nd November. I look forward to discussing with him and his colleagues a wide range of subjects of bilateral and international concern.

Mr. Dalyell: Against the welcome background of the number of incoming delegations such as those from the Chinese motor industry and the science delegation which was recently here—clearly, there will be increasing contact—could the right hon. Gentleman, when he is in Peking, raise the issue of BOAC entry to China and also, indeed, any incoming visits from the Chinese State airline to London?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I have already taken this possibility up in advance with the Government of China and I shall be following it up, as the hon. Gentleman requests, when I go there.

Middle East

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement concerning discussions which he has had with members and proposed members of the European Economic Community regarding policies in the Middle East.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The members of the enlarged Community attach great importance to an early political settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute and are keeping the situation in the Middle East under careful review.

Mr. Davis: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that there has been a most unfortunate and almost unprecedented coincidence of view between

Her Majesty's Government and the French Government very recently over the Middle East? Does he not agree that for years France has adopted a most hostile and partisan attitude towards Israel? Does he not also agree that this coincidence of view was reflected most recently at the United Nations when the Government refused to support an American resolution which condemned the terrorist outrage at Munich and the Arab Governments which aided and abetted that outrage yet at the same time condemned Israel for embarking on a policy of retaliation? Is this not a matter which reflects a very serious alignment between the French and British Governments?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir, I could not accept that interpretation. The Governments of France and Britain, as well as the other members of the Commuity, are very anxious to see a fair settlement of this dispute. I am equally conscious that no Government or combination of Governments can impose a settlement on either the Israelis or the Arabs. As for what the hon. Gentleman says about our attitude towards terrorism, we made it quite clear at once and have done so constantly that we are opposed to these terrorist activities. We simply do not think that retaliatory action on the scale used by Israel helps an ultimate answer to this problem.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Security Council Resolution No. 242 of November, 1967, still offers the best chance of a reasonable and fair settlement in that part of the world? Will he confirm that his admirable speech at Harrogate on 31st October 1970, is still very much the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Horne: Yes, Sir; and United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 242 is acceptable both to ourselves and to the French. I have said that no settlement can be imposed from outside, but the outline of the settlement I made in my speech at Harrogate two years ago is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Callaghan: On the question of discussions with the EEC, since the right hon. Gentleman has a remit to produce a common foreign policy by 30th June next—God help him!—can he say whether


the Middle East is included in this remit or whether, at France's request, that subject will be excluded from any common foreign policy?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: All the members of the European partnership are willing to try to see whether we can help towards a settlement in the Middle East. Therefore, it is a very good thing that we should meet from time to time to clear our own views. It remains to be seen whether we can put forward a settlement acceptable to both parties.

East African Asians

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the position of Asians with British passport resident in East Africa.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Ugandan Government to dissuade them from expelling Asians with British passports from Uganda.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement concerning discussions which he has had with President Amin concerning the position of United Kingdom passport holders in Uganda.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Ugandan Government to secure a longer period of notice of intention to deport Asians with British passports.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Despite our representations, the Ugandan Government have refused to rescind the decision to expel the Asians from Uganda or to extend the deadline of three months by which they must leave. They have, however, given assurances to the Secretary-General of the United Nations that Asians remaining after the deadline will not be maltreated.

Mr. Taylor: Has any estimate been made of the assets which Ugandan

Asian immigrants have been prevented from bringing out of that country, and does my right hon. Friend think that there is any reasonable chance of their obtaining compensation? Can he report on any progress in discussions with the United Nations about the position of stateless Ugandans?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That supplementary question goes slightly wider than the original Question. Nevertheless, I will answer my hon. Friend by saying that we have made representations about assets and again General Amin has told the United Nations Secretary-General that he does not intend to confiscate the property of the Asians. It still remains to be seen what he will do in terms of compensation. On the question of stateless Ugandan Asians, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whom we have been actively stimulating to do his best, has got a good long way in his discussions with the Ugandan Government about the treatment of stateless refugees. Our concern has been to get them out of Uganda safely.

Mr. Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the undertaking given to the United Nations about good treatment will be fulfilled? Is it possible for him to take steps to try to ensure that this is the case?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In view of recent history in Uganda, I cannot say that pledges will be carried out. They have been solemnly given to the United Nations Secretary-General, and again to the President of Liberia and to the President of Zaire. If these pledges are not kept, I must reserve every right to use all the machinery of the United Nations.

Mr. Powell: For how many persons have entry certificates been issued to date?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think in the region of 20,000.

Mr. Powell: You are wrong.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps I can confirm it to my right hon. Friend. I have not the latest figure with me.

Mr. Powell: It is over 25,000.

Mr. Davis: Has the Foreign Secretary given consideration to the convening of


a Commonwealth meeting in order to consider what useful place, if any, Uganda has in the Commonweath in future?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is a later Question on that subject.

Mr. Deedes: Have we been able to make any assessment of the assets of the Asians who have left Uganda?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Asians who are in a position to do so have given to our High Commissioner in Kampala an assessment of their assets. Therefore, these are recorded in the High Commission.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great public unease in the country that hundreds of thousands of Asians and other races with British passports, or possibly stateless persons, may claim the right to come to this country? Is there any comfort at all which Her Majesty's Government can give to people of this country on this matter which so vitally affects them and the future of their children?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is a Question on this matter later on the Order Paper.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations or complaints have been made to him about the manner, speed and efficiency with which the British High Commission in Kampala is processing applications to enter the United Kingdom by British passport-holders previously resident in Uganda.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have received a very small number of complaints and representations, including one from the hon. Gentleman. However, I am fully satisfied that the High Commission faced with very difficult circumstances has been working hard and efficiently to carry out its tasks before the deadline.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: While I appreciate that the staff of the High Commission are certainly working under extremely difficult circumstances, and that there has been a great deal of progress since my Question was tabled, will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless take note that a considerable body of opinion would wish

the benefit of any doubt to be given to those who are applying for entry and that a considerable number of people in this country would not wish any of the Asians to be left to the tender mercies of General Amin after the deadline through any bureaucratic procedures on the part of the British Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall not be bureaucratic in this matter, but there must be a limit to the number of Asians we can take, and we cannot take stateless Asians. But I have to resist the implication that the High Commission had not been efficient. What it has done in the time available is almost miraculous. We now look like getting all the Asians with British passports out before the deadline of 8th November. I deplore an anonymous memorandum dated 6th October which was circulated to a number of Members of Parliament and which had no basis of accuracy at all.

Czechoslovakia

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for discussions with the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia, Mr. Bohuslav Chnoupek.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I met Mr. Chnoupek in New York. There are no plans at present for a further meeting.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his answer will be very welcome? Should there be a subsequent meeting with the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia, I hope he will convey the alarm which exists in this country about the recent series of political trials in that country, although I appreciate that we have no standing in this matter. Will he also convey to the Czech Foreign Minister when they next meet the feelings expressed in the early day Motion No. 434 —Political Trials in Czechoslovakia—which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson)?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I have said, I saw the Czech Foreign Minister in New York and there would be no point in our having a meeting at present. The timing of any meeting would be within my own control.

Rhodesia

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Smith régime about the withdrawal of passports from Bishop Muzorewa and the Reverend Canaan Banana.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: None, Sir. As I have made clear on many occasions, we have no control over developments inside Rhodesia, and cannot bring about the return of the Rhodesian passports in this case.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that there is a great difference between the way in which Africans are treated in Rhodesia and the way in which Rhodesians are treated in this country? Is it not time he took vigorous action to protect the rights of Africans in Rhodesia? Will he make clear that the sporting emissaries of the Smith regime, such as the present touring hockey team, are not welcome here, and will he act vigorously to stop such people coming to Britain?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman's appeal to me would be more convincing if his Government had been able to do anything in similar circumstances. We cannot bring about the return of Rhodesian passports and that is what the Question is about.

Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate that there is a limit on what the Foreign Secretary can do, but he can speak. Is it not the case that there will be no adequate settlement in Rhodesia unless people like those mentioned in the Question are able to express their views and put the views of the millions they represent? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman express to the Rhodesian Government the British Government's concern that leaders of this sort, who have proved their worth, should be denied passports?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Smith is well aware that our feeling is that leaders of African opinion must be able to put their views to others and that there ought to be a settlement which has the assent of those leaders of African opinion. But passports are an internal matter for Rhodesia on which I cannot influence Mr. Smith.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Is my right hon Friend aware that the actions of Mr. Smith's Government in Rhodesia contrast very favourably with the actions of President Amin in Uganda?

Mr. Hughes: Rubbish.

Mr. Peter Archer: If there are ever again negotiations for a settlement with the Rhodesian régime, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that it is an essential condition that human rights there, such as the freeing of political prisoners and freedom of movement, will be restored?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read the proposed settlement I made with Mr. Smith in November, he would have seen that part of it was a declaration of human rights. I am afraid that will be absent so long as there is no settlement.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government decided to abstain in the Security Council vote upon the resolution reaffirming its decision to use mandatory sanctions against Southern Rhodesia submitted by Guinea, Somalia and Sudan; why a further resolution was rejected with the United Kingdom casting the only negative vote and thus exercising the veto; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The United Kingdom representative abstained on Security Council Resolution 320 since it did not contain any proposals likely to help the United Nations in supervising the implementation of existing sanctions. The further draft resolution and two of its paragraphs which were put to the vote separately were vetoed because they called for no independence before majority African rule and contained unacceptable conditions about how Her Majesty's Government should handle the Fifth Principle.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not shameful that in the forum of the world with the world's eyes upon Her Majesty's Government we seem to be placating and appeasing the rebel Mr. Smith? Will the right hon. Gentleman take much firmer action, especially when the honour of Britain is at stake, over such issues at the United


Nations and take steps to step up sanctions and to bring the maximum amount of pressure to get this rebellion stopped?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When I was at the United Nations I did not find in relation to our Rhodesian policy any question of the United Nations members questioning the honour of the British policy. On the contrary, I think that most of them expected us not to accept the Pearce Report. When we did, they were surprised and, I think, thought that our course of action was honourable. I have to point out in the United Nations from time to time that the only thing we are trying to do is to get Rhodesia back into the comity of nations in an honourable way and to give it independence so that it can take part in international affairs again in an honourable way. That is not always understood in that assembly.

Sir Gilbert Longden: When discussing mandatory sanctions, has the United Nations ever deliberated which is the more worthy of having mandatory sanctions imposed against it—a country like Uganda which expels citizens who wish to stay there or a country like Russia which retains those who wish to get out?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I doubt whether the United Nations would make those rather nice distinctions.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Are not large-scale violations of sanctions being perpetrated by British firms through South Africa? Has the Foreign Secretary given no consideration to the tightening of sanctions? Has he no further action in mind to discriminate against firms, particularly British firms, which are still in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of breaches which he can place before me, I will consider it. If anybody has any evidence that a firm, British or any other nationality, is breaking sanctions, it is reported to the United Nations and from that moment on it is for the United Nations to take action.

Hijacking and Terrorism

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a

statement on European and other international action against hijacking and terrorism.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): We are actively discussing in the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO—a convention on sanctions against States which fail to deal adequately with hijackers and similar criminals within their jurisdiction.
My right hon. Friend discussed terrorism with his European colleagues in Rome last month.
At the United Nations, where an item on terrorism has been inscribed on the agenda, we will play a full and active part in discussion on measures which would contribute to effective collective international action against terrorism, no matter from what source it arises.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As surrender to blackmail only invites more, will Her Majesty's Government seek to sustain our Turkish allies and get the support of other Government in doing that in their present agonising decision?

Mr. Godber: I greatly deplore the action of those who have posed this question to the Turkish Government. I do not think there is anything that we can usefully do with regard to it. We must seek to get international agreement so that those who indulge in these outrages shall know that there is no safe haven for them anywhere in the world. This is the purpose of the discussions that we are having, and this is what I hope we shall help to bring to a conclusion.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend says that the matter is being actively pursued at the ICAO convention. Is it not over a month since the proposals of the four countries were tabled there? Cannot my right hon. Friend say with more precision what results have flowed from that consideration in the very urgent state of this matter?

Mr. Godber: My right hon. and learned Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper on this specific point and I propose to answer it. At this stage I say only that it is our desire to hurry things up. The proposals were those of a sub-committee, and these have to be endorsed by the full body.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common. wealth Affairs what is the present position as to the consideration by the Convention of the International Civil Aviation Organisation of the joint proposals from Great Britain, the United States of America, Canada and the Netherlands in regard to the control of hijacking and other act of terrorism and sabotage in respect of aircraft.

Mr. Godber: The Legal Sub-Committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which met in Washington last month, has now reported to the International Civil Aviation Organisation Council. We are pressing for the immediate circulation of the report to member States, and for the convening as a matter of urgency of a meeting at which all member States may consider it with a view to concluding an international agreement.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: As our representative found it necessary to block the initial proposals of the United States and Canada, does not there now perhaps rest on us a special duty to see that these new joint proposals are implemented as soon as possible, and does my right hon. Friend think that speedy progress can be made towards a practical and successful outcome?

Mr. Godber: Our desire is to have a fully effective agreement as soon as possible. We support, with the amendments which we proposed and which have been accepted, the proposals which came originally from the United States. We want to make them fully effective and we believe that our amendements work towards that end. As I indicated in my original answer, we are pressing for an early meeting. What we want is full support for these revised proposals.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes to meet the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Dr. Hillery and I were both at the summit meeting in Paris on 18th and 19th October. I have no plans for a formal meeting with the Foreign Minister at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took

the opportunity of the Paris meeting to talk with Mr. Lynch.

Mr. McNamara: Can we have more details of the outcome of the talks with Mr. Lynch? In particular, because of the incursions into the six counties from the Republic and now from the six counties into the Republic, is there not a more urgent need for the Governments of both countries—the Irish Government and the British Government—to sit down and hammer out a policy for dealing with the dreadful things that are happening in Northern Ireland?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is so. We have repeatedly told Mr. Lynch how important it is that the incursions from the Irish Republic should be controlled by the Government of Ireland. Mr. Lynch can he in no doubt about that matter. My right hon. Friend is always willing to meet the Irish Prime Minister.

British Passport Holders

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the potential number of United Kingdom passport holders in former British territories, other than Uganda.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Reliable figures are impossible to obtain, but the best estimate we can make on the information available is 255,000. I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dykes: Although this obviously excludes Hong Kong, which is still a British territory, and although none of us would wish to foresee another crisis along the lines of the Ugandan Asian crisis, will my right hon. Friend undertake to discuss the question of British passports, which are increasingly anachronistic, with the United Nations and with the Commonwealth, because one can never be exactly sure that such a contingency will not arise again?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. We have very orderly arrangements with Tanzania and Kenya and we have reason to believe that the Governments of those countries wish to maintain those. I hope that there will be no danger of a repetition in the


immediate future of what we have been through. We always keep this matter very closely under review.

Mr. Callaghan: I have no doubt that in 1954 when passports were conceded it was thought that there was no likely danger of the promise needing to be kept in such numbers. Does not this large potential influx of over a quarter of a million point to the need to go back to the basic question of considering citizenship as the basis for entry and residence in this country? Would it not be better if we were to review once again the Act which was passed last year, when this principle was raised from both sides of the House, and try to determine it so that we avoid getting into these tangles?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of doing this. I have said that we keep these matters under review.

Mr. Ridley: Is not the difficulty about this situation that the option appears to be open for such a long time? Will my right hon. Friend enter into negotiations with the countries concerned to see whether the option can be terminated in time?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We can and will review all these matters. It is not desirable at this moment to make statements about these matters. We are in the middle of a very tricky operation with the Ugandan Asians. I can only note what my hon. Friend says and promise that we will keep this matter under very close review. The figures I have stated have been known for a good many years. They have not varied. I have made the latest possible check. The figure varies in only small degree from what was said a year or two ago.

Mr. George Cunningham: In view of the exaggerated statements which have been made about Britain's potential obligations in respect of the so-called Queen's Chinese in Penang and Malacca, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement making completely precise what Britain's obligations are in respect of dual citizens holding both Malaysian and United Kingdom citizenship in Malaysia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes; I will certainly do that.

Following are the details:
The estimated numbers of people with no other citizenship, who are subject to control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts and who are resident in former British territories are:


Kenya
50,000


Tanzania
20,000


Zambia
6,000


Malawi
13,000


India
25,000


Pakistan
1,000


Malaysia
110,000


Singapore
30,000


There are also small groups resident in other countries throughout the world. It is impossible to estimate their numbers but they are unlikely to be large.

Uganda

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will refer the situation in Uganda to the Security Council for a determination under Article 29 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No. But I must reserve the right to use any part of the United Nations machinery if it seems likely to serve the interests of the Ugandan Asians or of this country.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is not the situation in Uganda a threat to the peace within within the terms of Article 9 just as much at any rate as was the situation six years ago in Rhodesia where the question of domestic jurisdiction was not held to invalidate the reference? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that not nearly enough is being done in the United Nations in regard to what is a clear breach of international law on the part of the Ugandan Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The question of a breach of the peace would first arise in relation to a possible conflict with Tanzania. The Tanzanian Government have not brought this to the United Nations or requested any action under Article 39. It would be difficult to establish in the United Nations that this is a breach of the peace under Article 39, whatever our opinion may be and notwithstanding the just comparison with the Rhodesian situation which my right hon. and learned Friend makes.
As to the action of the United Nations, my right hon. and learned Friend is familiar with the speech I made there and knows that the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Refugees are taking action. We had better get this operation over first and get the Asians out safely. Then I intend to review the whole of the relationship between this country and Uganda.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I certainly would not wish in any way to criticise but rather to praise the action the Government have taken in a thoroughly compassionate and laudable way over the reception of the Asians here and the attempts the Government have made to persuade other countries to help in taking them in. However, does my right hon. Friend realise that in the country as a whole there is a very considerable misunderstanding about the reasons why my right hon. Friend has not felt able to take more decisive action yet in the United Nations? Will he consider laying a White Paper so that the country can be fully informed about what Her Majesty's Government's policy is in regard to United Nations action on this matter?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am not sure that a White Paper is the best way to convey Her Majesty's Government's policy to the country on these matters. There is a wide variety of action which we could take in the United Nations. We must recognise the limitations of that body. If one takes action, one wants it to be effective. I would keep all the options open in relation to the future use of the United Nations machinery.

Mr. Normanton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the actions taken by the Government of Uganda, he will now take steps as soon as possible to effect that country's expulsion from the Commonwealth.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Care for the plight of the Asian refugees and their property must be our first concern. The Commonwealth may be able to influence the Ugandan Government for example in relation to compensation for property.

Mr. Normanton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The House will

support the general concept of playing Uganda cool, at least until the refugees have been extracted from that sorry land. But does not my right hon. Friend agree that Uganda and its Government appear to be cocking a snook at the whole institution of the Commonwealth and should not get away with it, and that we should at least take action and express our bitterest regret and annoyance at their whole attitude, and even cast in doubt the merit of Uganda's remaining in the Commonwealth?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said on many occasions, and repeat now, that the actions of General Amin have been totally inconsistent with any civilised standard of behaviour. Perhaps the best use of the Commonwealth is to influence people who go astray, but, as I have said, I should like to review the whole of our relations when the operation is over.

Mr. Grimond: While I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's immediate answer, does he agree that the Commonwealth is either an institution in which all races are treated equally or it will be nothing, that the present behaviour of the Ugandan Government is incompatible with membership of the Commonwealth, though they may change, and that it is extremely difficult to justify a perfectly right expulsion of South Africa while retaining Uganda in the Commonwealth?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Ugandan Government's behaviour is certainly incompatible with the standards we would expect of a Commonwealth member.

Mr. Rost: If the Commonwealth supports sanctions against Rhodesia, why does it not now support sanctions against Uganda, as a deterrent to any other potential racialistic dictator?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a matter that can no doubt be put to members of the Commonwealth if and when they meet, perhaps later on in 1973.

Mr. George Cunningham: Bearing in mind that any decision to expel Uganda could only be one for all Commonwealth Governments, presumably acting in unanimity, will the right hon. Gentleman consider informing other Commonwealth


Governments that it is our opinion that Uganda's behaviour is such that expulsion is appropriate? Will he consider an innovation in the idea of suspension from Commonwealth membership until such time as Uganda acquires a Government which are fit to abide by the principles of Commonwealth membership?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, which I think are shared by most hon. Members, including myself. The actions of the Ugandan Government have been intolerable. I do not necessarily conclude from that as yet that they should be expelled from the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth must be aware of this behaviour, and perhaps it will see fit to take action of some kind.

Soviet Jews

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now protest to the Soviet authorities concerning the proposal to impose a ransom upon Jewish scientists seeking repatriation to the State of Israel, and whether in view of the new tax he will now raise the plight of Academician Benjamin Levich, who was appointed to a Fellowship by University College, Oxford.

Mr. Godber: On 19th September the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office drew the attention of a senior official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union to the strength of feeling in this country on the question of Soviet Jews and specifically to the tax on emigrants. Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility in the matter of the treatment by the Soviet Government of individual Soviet citizens and are, therefore, unable to make representations in such cases.

Mr. Janner: May I first thank the Minister for his answer and for having seen that these representations were made. I ask him to keep this matter particularly in mind as there have been certain relaxations in the last week which are welcome, but Academician Levich and others have indicated to me that they regard the situation as particularly dangerous because still they have no visas and still people may be fooled into think-

ing that the present methods have been relaxed. May I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will if necessary raise the matter in the way he has in the past?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the first part of his supplementary question and I gladly give the assurance that we will do anything we can in the difficult matter. I think that he understands the difficulty, but we will certainly do what we can.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend take this matter further and in the light of this precedent bring to the attention of the Soviet Government their treatment of Ukrainian intellectuals and writers, and intellectuals and thinkers of other minorities in the Soviet Union who are also experiencing persecution?

Mr. Godber: We always regret any such action within a State, but we must recognise the limitations upon us with regard to citizens of those States. It is for that reason that it is not possible to go as far as my hon. Friend would wish.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman be assured that on both sides of the House there is strong approbation of the attitude he has taken to the recent relaxation on the part of the Soviet Union in regard to this religious minority and in particular in regard to this very distinguished man whose case, while not being special in relation to others who have suffered terribly in the past few years for these reasons, is nevertheless unique in that he must be regarded as being part of the normal interchange of intellectual, cultural and scientific knowledge between civilised countries?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I do not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says. This is a matter which must be of concern to us all, but I have had to explain the limitations imposed on us in the matter.

German Democratic Republic

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now recognise the German Democratic Republic.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the recent series of agreements aimed at ending the division between East and West in Europe? If so, is not recognition the logical next step in that direction, and what is the reason for delay?

Mr. Royle: Of course we welcome the agreements which have been made over the past year, but it would not be appropriate to recognise the GDR while the Federal Government were seeking to normalise relations, and they have not finished doing so yet. We should also have to be satisfied that recognition was compatible with our international obligations, in particular with our special responsibilities for Berlin and for Germany as a whole.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is widely believed that there is a keen desire in both East and West Germany for the normalisation of relations and recognition of the acceptance of two separate countries there, and that it is widely believed that this country is among those that are dragging their feet on the issue and preventing an agreement which would otherwise come about? Would the hon. Gentleman care to deny the suggestion which has been made?

Mr. Royle: Yes, Sir. It is quite untrue. We are not dragging our feet at all. The General Transport Treaty between the FGR and the GDR, ratified by the East Germans on 16th October, is only part of the Federal German Republic's efforts to achieve normalisation of relations with the East Germans. While negotiations continue it would be inappropriate for Her Majesty's Government to take any steps which might enhance the status of the GDR and prejudice the success of the negotiations.

South Africa

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice about the South African Government's policies is given in South Africa by his Department's representatives to British businessmen visiting that country.

The Under-Secretary of State for foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): Information and

advice on the South African Government's policies as they may affect British businessmen are given on request by the Commercial Departments of the Embassy and our Consulates-General.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only advice his Department's representatives are giving to British businesmen in South Africa is to follow local custom? As Britain is South Africa's largest overseas investor, and consequently is seen by Africans as propping up apartheid, is it not time that this country told its own businessmen that they either act as agents of social change in South Africa or get out?

Mr. Kershaw: We have made it clear on a number of occasions that Her Majesty's Government do not believe in the policies of boycott and ostracism for South Africa, any more than did the previous Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported. As to the information we give, we have given our firms there every encouragement to conduct their businesses in the best possible way in South Africa.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman advise businessmen visiting South Africa that South Africa's presence in Namibia is illegal, as laid down by the International Court of Justice, and therefore discourage British businessmen taking part in an internationally recognised illegal act?

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. It is not accepted that South Africa's presence in Namibia is illegal. Therefore, we do not so advise British businessmen.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official communication and contact is maintained by representatives of his Department in South Africa with the National Union of South African Students.

Mr. Kershaw: The Ambassador's official contacts are with the South African Government to whom he is accredited. But he and his staff naturally keep in touch with a wide spectrum of political, social and economic opinion, including representatives of the organisation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Huckfield: is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in fact, his Department's


representative's contacts with NUSAS are very sparing and slight indeed? As this is one of the few non-racial organisations left in South Africa and as the South African Government are doing their best to crush NUSAS in a highly rigged and biased parliamentary commission, will his Department do its best not only to strengthen links with NUSAS but also offer some kind of support?

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Embassy in South Africa is in close contact with NUSAS and with a large number of other multiracial organisations. I know that the hon. Gentleman, when he was recently in South Africa, took very biased information about what is going on there.

Mr. Blaker: Will my hon. Friend say what instructions are given by his Department to our representatives in Moscow about maintaining contact with organisations which the Soviet Government are trying to crush?

Mr. Kershaw: We are anxious to make contact with other organisations but we are not allowed to do so there.

Indonesia

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Indonesia.

Mr. Anthony Royle: My right hon. Friend paid an official visit to Indonesia in July and has no plans at present to pay a further visit.

Mr. Archer: Did the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary seize the opportunity to explain to the Indonesian Government that those of us who would like to see better relations with Indonesia are exercised by the fact that there are probably more political prisoners in Indonesia in proportion to the population than in any other country in the world, that this very much exercises world public opinion and that it would be an earnest of good intentions if the Indonesians at least released the category C prisoners?

Mr. Royle: The question of political detainees must be a matter of Indonesian internal affairs. It would be quite inappropriate for Her Majesty's Government to comment.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has now been the outcome of his discussionns with Indonesia about compensation for British assets in that country.

Mr. Anthony Royle: My right hon. Friend told the Indonesian authorities in Djakarta in July of our concern at the delay in settling the compensation claims. The Indonesian Minister of State for Economic, Financial and Industrial Affairs assured our Ambassador in writing on 21st October that compensation would be paid and that his Government would very soon make proposals.

Mr. Taylor: That is splendid news. Can my hon. Friend give us any indication of the sums involved in the British assets which were seized? Are they around £200 million, as had been previously suggested?

Mr. Royle: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact sums involved but I shall try to let him have the figures as soon as they are available. The Indonesian Government have given first priority to claims from any firms wishing to take back their estates. All major British claims for the return of estates have now been settled.

Mr. David Roy Adams

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the loss of Mr. David Roy Adams, a district officer in the Solomon Islands, who was reported missing on 12th September.

Mr. Kershaw: The High Commissioner Western Pacific reported that Mr. Adams was missing presumed drowned at sea whilst on duty on 12th September. A thorough search was unsuccessful.
An inquiry has been held in the territory. Full details are not yet available, but the verdict was death by misadventure.

Sir D. Renton: I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in expressing sympathy to the parents and relatives of Mr. Adams in this country. Bearing in mind that the inquiry started over a month ago, can he say why the details


are not yet available? Will he meanwhile say what was the unladen weight or the overall length of the ship concerned?

Mr. Kershaw: I am very glad to join my right hon. and learned Friend in his expressions of sympathy. As to the delay, he will bear in mind the very scattered nature of the territory and the fact that the search vessels concerned dispersed after the search, and that it was necessary to get the evidence of their crews before the inquiry could be properly concluded. I do not know the size of vessel but it was quite small. I understand that it is likely that Mr. Adams fell overboard where a rail was missing, but I cannot say with certainty whether that is so. Unfortunately, Mr. Adams was not a swimmer.

Hong Kong

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his recent official visit to Hong Kong.

Mr. Anthony Royle: My right hon. Friend paid an official visit to Hong Kong in February last and plans to pass through Hong Kong on 2nd–3rd November on his way back from China. I am looking forward to visiting Hong Kong from 11th to 15th November. I shall be having wide-ranging discussions with the Governor, officials and leading members of the community.

Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that that information will be very welcome? As half the population of Hong Kong are under 21 years of age, will my hon. Friend give particular attention during his visit to policies designed to capture the imagination of these young people?

Mr. Royle: I share my hon. Friend's views about this. The Governor is to provide increasing opportunities for all young people in all fields.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman take a special look at the development that has gone on in co-operatives for fishermen in Hong Kong, with a view to advising his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development of further help that he might be able to give to that excellent development?

Mr. Royle: I shall certainly look into that whilst I am in the colony.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Minister to the Holy See made to the Vatican on the Irish problem; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Royle: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had the opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland with His Holiness the Pope during their meeting on Wednesday, 4th October. Her Majesty's Minister to the Holy See keeps the Vatican fully informed about developments in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Pope was most welcome, is not the fullest understanding with the Holy See on these grave problems most important? Therefore, is this not a time when the Government might reconsider the status of the British mission?

Mr. Royle: I told the House on 27th March in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that I am keeping the matter under review. I do not wish to forecast at this stage. Relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Holy See remain cordial, and I am not aware that our Minister to the Holy See is in any way hindered in his activities by his present status.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does my hon. Friend recall that he and his numerous predecessors in that office have been reviewing this matter for at least six years? Would it be reasonable to expect something to emerge within a reasonable time from this examination in such detail?

Mr. Royle: It would be reasonable, but I do not think it will be possible.

World Disarmament Conference

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reply he has sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in response to his invitation to offer views and suggestions relating to a world disarmament conference.

Mr. Godber: Our reply, which was given to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 29th August, said in brief that we would favour a world disarmament conference provided that it had the general support of the United Nations membership and in particular of all the nuclear Powers. It must also be carefully and adequately prepared. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will circulate the full text of our reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Archer: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he would consider suggesting that the opportunity should be seized for discussing a more positive basis of international co-operation such as a world peace-keeping force with more effective international judicial machinery?

Mr. Godber: I would certainly welcome that idea if we could get it off the ground. It is an objective that many of us have shared for many years, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties. So far as a world disarmament conference is concerned, the responses of some countries have been very discouraging, and this applies in particular to more than one of the nuclear Powers. Therefore, we should not build too great hopes at the moment. However, I hope to be in New York later this week to have discussions on this matter.

Following is the text:
UNITED KINGDOM REPLY TO UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 2833 (XXVI).

1. The United Kingdom Government supports wholeheartedly the efforts of the United Nations under the Charter to maintain and improve international security and to preserve the peace and believes that arms control and disarmament have a vital role to play in the discharging of these responsibilities. Through effective measures of arms control and disarmament the structure of international security is consolidated and the diversion of scarce resources to costly and dangerous arms races can be prevented. It is therefore a clear duty incumbent on governments energetically to pursue agreement on measures of disarmament, to do all in their power to bring under control the escalating spiral of arms transfers and production and to remove this burden from the peoples of the world.
2. The United Kingdom has contributed constructively to the negotiation of the existing instruments in the field of disarmament—the partial test ban treaty of 1963, the Antarctic and outer space treaties, the Treaty on the

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the sea-bed arms control treaty, and the biological weapons convention. Most of these instruments were negotiated in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, the Conference to which the United Nations has entrusted the conduct of negotiations on disarmament. The Government of the United Kingdom recognises the major contribution of this Committee to international security, and continues to place great importance on the existence of an expert committee comprising countries which have built tip an expertise in disarmament negotiations and a profound knowledge and practical experience of the difficult problems which are to be solved.
3. The Government of the United Kingdom recognises the necessity periodically to renew the sense of urgency with which the nations address the problem of disarmament and arms control. It recognises also that it is of the highest importance that all the five permanent members of the Security Council should be included in the international disarmement negotiations. The United Nations General Assembly is itself a forum for such reassessment and renewal. But the United Kingdom Government does not close its mind to any other forum for which there is general support. It would favour the calling of a world disarmament conference provided such a conference had the general support of the United Nations membership and in particular of all the nuclear Powers, whose active participation would be essential to the consideration of measures in the nuclear field as foreseen in the preamble to resolution 2833 (XXVI); and provided thorough preparatory work showed that a satisfactory basis for such a conference exists.
4. The United Kingdom Government holds that, if it is agreed that a world disarmament conference should be held, there should be no automatic exclusion from the agenda of any aspect of disarmament and arms control whether nuclear or non-nuclear and the approach to the conference should be based on the principle that at each stage of disarmament and arms control a balance should be preserved which maintains or improves the security of all those concerned. As regards the procedures to be adopted for carrying out the preparatory work, adequate preparation for the conference would be of the highest importance. A conference which took place without detailed and careful preparation and prior agreement on the main areas for discussion would not merely fail to achieve concrete results but could have damaging effects, by arousing the expectations of the world community only to frustrate them. The United Kingdom Government therefore believes that if the General Assembly should decide in principle to proceed with the preparation of a world disarmament conference, this preparation should be entrusted to a preparatory committee with a balanced membership. It would be to the advantage of this committee if it could draw on the knowledge of some of those with experience of the disarmament negotiations in Geneva.
5. The Government of the United Kingdom believes that a definite date should not be assigned to the conference until the work of


the preparatory committee has made it clear that a satisfactory basis exists for the holding of a conference. As to the relationship between the conference and the United Nations, we believe that such a conference should be held within the United Nations framework. For practical and administrative reasons, the appropriate site for a conference might be New York but whatever venue is chosen for the conference itself, the United Kingdom view is that a preparatory committee could best do its work in Geneva, where it would be able to draw on the expertise of participants in the existing Conference of the Committee on Disarmament. For its part the United Kingdom would be willing to play a full part in such a preparatory committee.

European Economic Community

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the House is well aware, the European Communities Act is now on the Statute Book. We have deposited our Instrument of Ratification of the Accession Treaty and the United Kingdom will become a full member of the European Communities on 1st January, 1973. Denmark, too, has ratified and will also become a full member on the same date. The Norwegian decision in no way affects the position of this country.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that we should remain in the EEC at any cost, even if the effects on our cost of living and our balance of payments situation turn out to be disastrous?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Member will appreciate that we have gone into the Community on a carefully calculated cost, not at any cost.

Mr. J. T. Price: Has the Foreign Secretary, in spite of what he has just said, made clear to our new partners in the European Economic Community that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are opposed to the Community in its present form and that they will never forgive this Government for forcing them into the Community without consulting them or obtaining any kind of agreement from the majority of the people in the country? If our European partners know

that, they will know that the European Economic Community as at present constituted rests on a very insecure foundation so far as this country is concerned.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion—mine happens to be slightly different—about what people in this country think. Anyhow we shall see at the next General Election.

Mr. Heffer: Then can we have it next week?

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Roofing Slate (Subsidy)

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many Welsh housing authorities have made representations to him about the discontinuance of the special subsidy for the use of slate for roofing purposes and if he will make a statement;

(2) if provision through a rising cost subsidy to cover a housing authority adversely affected by the cost of providing slate for roofing purposes, under the Housing Act, 1972, will at least compensate such authorities for the loss of additional subsidy for the use of special materials payable under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations direct from any Welsh housing authority but the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) have forwarded to him a letter addressed to them by Ffestiniog Urban District Council.
The extra cost involved in providing slate in appropriate cases can be counted as reckonable expenditure for rising costs subsidy. That part of the subsidy attributable to the use of slate or other special materials will vary according to circumstances, but an authority qualifying for rising costs subsidy could receive as much as 85 per cent. of the cost of providing a new dwelling, including the cost of special material such as slate, compared with just over 50 per cent. at present.

Mr. Roberts: While thanking the Minister of State for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that various


authorities in whose areas slate is produced and used are concerned about the possibility of their coming out less well under the 1972 Act than under the 1967 Act? Will he, in order to check the percentages which he has just given, meet those authorities—there are only half a dozen of them—on the spot and discuss their apprehensions with them?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I would certainly have no objection to going to considerable lengths to put their fears at rest. Fortunately, the answer that I have given to the right hon. Gentleman is highly satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Textiles (Foreign Competition)

Mr. Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is being taken to protect the British textile industry against unfair foreign competition.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): The British textile industry is protected both by quantitative restrictions on cotton products and by tariffs. We also have power to impose anti-dumping duties on imports which are dumped and are causing or threatening material injury to a United Kingdom industry.

Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, perhaps he is aware, as I am, that the textile industry in this country has suffered more than any other industry from contraction and redundancies over the last 50 years. Is he satisfied that even with the figures which he has just spelt out, the Government are doing enough for this industry which is so vital to Lancashire and Cheshire? Is he assured that their interests are safeguarded in the European Economic Community?

Mr. Emery: The Government certainly appreciate the problems that this industry has had to face. I think I can say that we have no formal applications on hand at present for anti-dumping action. We are in touch with several sectors of the industry which are considering the problems involved, and of course the Government will deal with these matters if they should arise.

Mr. Bray: Can my hon. Friend indicate whether it is his intention to continue the tariffs and quotas beyond 31st December, 1972?

Mr. Emery: If my hon. Friend is asking "Will anti-dumping action be possible when we join the EEC and after that period?" the answer is "Yes".

A300B Airbus

Mr. Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has now had with the Hawker Siddeley company on the development and potential of the A300B Airbus.

Mr. Emery: There are regular contacts between my Department and the company on this and other aircraft projects on which it is engaged.

Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but is he aware that Hawker Siddeley is, perhaps, the only aero-manufacturing company in this country which works at a profit? Does he not feel that the company has been starved of Government contracts and that they have gone, perhaps ill-advisedly, to other areas?

Mr. Emery: The Government would certainly pay tribute to Hawker-Siddeley for all that it does in the aircraft industry, and I gladly do that. However, we have received no request for Government assistance towards any further development of the A300B airbus.

SWAN HUNTER, TYNESIDE (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Rhodes (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will appoint a conciliation officer to intervene in the industrial dispute at Swan Hunter Shipbuilding Consortium on Tyneside in view of the fact that there appears to be a willingness on the part of all sides of the dispute locally to accept such machinery to settle the matter, which has already resulted in several thousands of redundancies and unemployment in the area.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Since 5th September, the 3,800 boilermakers employed by Swan Hunter on the Tyne have been on strike in support of a claim


for a wage increase of 171 per cent. The strike was unofficial, in breach of the industry's agreed procedure for the resolution of disputes, and sought to reopen the existing wage agreement with the company which runs to May, 1974. Some 2,400 other employees have had to be laid off in consequence.
From the outset, the company was prepared to begin negotiations on a cost of living claim provided that normal working was resumed and the agreed procedures followed. The strikers persistently ignored their union executive's instructions to return to work.
On 18th October, negotiations began between the company and the union, with the shop stewards in attendance. The company finally offered an immediate increase of £2·50 a week with a further increase of £1 a week in June, 1973; the agreement to last until the current agreement ends in May, 1974. This offer was rejected, the union refusing to put it to its members. I understand that the union negotiators indicated that they would settle for an immediate increase of £3 a week, with a further increase of £1·50 in January. They then made the strike official.
It was only at this point that the union requested conciliation.
In considering this request against the history of the dispute and the known attitude of the parties, I have had to conclude that the involvement of officials of my Department would be wholly inconsistent with safeguarding the objectives agreed by the CBI and TUC in the talks in which they are currently engaged with the Government. It would be inconsistent also with the Government's expectation that all those concerned with pay and price determination will not take any action inconsistent with the proposals made to secure those objectives.

Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is now an official strike, that his rigid adherence to the £2 mark shows an attitude stubborn to the point of utter stupidity, that, after seven weeks of strike, this great Tyneside industry is sinking into a morass of confusion, and the management, may I say, is not all that happy with the way the Government are handling the matter? Does he not appreciate that

what the Government have decided will jeopardise even the negotiations with the Trades Union Congress later this week? Is he not playing with fire in such a ham-fisted way that he will burn his fingers unless he does something different pretty quickly?

Mr. Macmillan: If anyone is playing with fire, it is the hon. Gentleman. He has pointed out that the strike is now official. For seven weeks, it was an unofficial strike, and then, when the union leaders were unable to get their members to agree to their instructions, they followed the militant element and made the strike official on Friday, 20th October. The hon. Gentleman is endorsing this attitude of weak leadership by the attitude which he is taking in the House.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: is my right hon. Friend aware that the company continues to suggest that it is wholly desirous of settling this matter? Does he consider that any attempt to gain political capital out of this situation, at national or local level, is to be deplored?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I do deplore it, and that is precisely why I answered as I did the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes). If the company is willing to continue negotiations and talks with the unions concerned, I hope that both parties will bear in mind the Government's request that the objectives which have been jointly agreed by the CBI, the TUC and the Government will not be prejudged in the course of these negotiations.

Mr. Prentice: Will not the Secretary of State clearly acknowledge that, on Wednesday, after 11 hours of talks in which the gap between the two sides was narrowed to the figures which he gave just now, a situation was reached in which the request for conciliation would have been accepted in any normal circumstances, and would have been accepted but for his own hamfisted attempt to preempt the result of the talks with the CBI and the TUC?
Will he further acknowledge that the experience of all Governments has been that any attempt to distort the role of conciliation officers and turn them into policemen for Goverment wage polices leads not to reduced inflation but only to


the discredit of the conciliation service? Even if such an attitude were justified after agreement with the CBI and the TUC—which I do not concede for a moment—it is certainly not justified in advance, and will not the right hon. Gentleman's clumsy attempt to proceed in this way rob the Government at Thursday's talks of whatever credibility they might have had and damage the prospects of the talks themselves?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's diagnosis. The conciliation services of my Department are in no way discredited, as is shown by the fact that there has been more demand for them in 1971, and continuing into 1972, than ever before, and that a higher proportion of those requests have come from union sources.
Requests for conciliation have always been considered by successive Governments in the light of all the prevailing circumstances. There is no change here. Part of the prevailing circumstances is the request by the Government not to prejudge the outcome of talks between the Government, the TUC and the CBI by acting in a manner inconsistent with any agreement which is likely to be reached.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend observe to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) that it would be better if, before putting Private Notice Questions, he understood some of the real facts on Tyneside? However difficult industrial relations may be on Tyneside—and they are quite difficult—would it not be much better if the hon. Member stopped trying to intervene in things about which he knows very little?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend has given a harsh judgment, but I would support her general view that at a time like this such interventions are not helpful to the eventual settlement of these disputes.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituent Mr. Dan McGarvey, the president of the Boilermakers' Society, has worked long and hard to try to resolve this dispute, and that he sees the Minister's action last week as clearly sabotaging his efforts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 2,000 of the 3,000 members of

my union, the General and Municipal Workers, have been laid off as a direct result of the dispute, and that we do not think any more kindly of the right hon. Gentleman than the boilermakers do at the present time. Will not the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to pre-empt the discussions between the TUC, the CBI and the Government later this week manifestly make the reaching of successful conclusions more difficult?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not pre-empting the outcome of any discussions. I am trying to prevent other people from so doing. The hon. Gentleman referred to the duration of the strike and the number of people put out of work as a consequence. This is, of course, a serious matter, but there were seven weeks in which the boilermakers' union was unable to prevent an unofficial strike putting members of his union out of work, and it was only when it was clearly demonstrated that that was impossible that the leaders of the boilermakers' union were forced to join with the militants and make the strike official, because they were not able to keep the union to the agreed procedures.

Sir P. Bryan: Will my right hon. Friend say what were the exact reasons the union leaders gave for declaring the strike official when they had declined to declare it official for seven weeks?

Mr. Macmillan: I was not aware of any particular reasons given for so doing, other than that they were unable to prevent it going on.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Throughout Tyneside, with the exception, perhaps, of the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), there is a general feeling that intervention by the Government's officers might have been of value and of help. Should not we use the opportunity when we came so near to an agreement?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member is forgetting that the official strike started only very recently after a very long unofficial strike. It started as a result of the inability of the union leadership to ensure that the correct procedures were complied with. In those circumstances, and in the circumstances of the discussions which will take place on Thursday, I do not believe that an intervention such


as the hon. Members describes would have been helpful.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (SUMMIT CONFERENCE)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the conference of Heads of State or Government of the member and acceding States of the European Communities which was held in Paris on 19th–20th October at the invitation of President Pompidou.
This conference marked the enlargement of the Community, and the new dimension which it has come to have in consequence. It recognised the opportunities which this new dimension offers for the prosperity and well-being of our own peoples and for what we can do together for the peace of the world. Its achievements were made possible by a great deal of careful preparatory work, in a series of meetings of Foreign Ministers starting in February this year, and in a number of discussions which I myself had with other Heads of State or Government over the preceding months.
The purpose of the meeting was to set the course for the development of the enlarged Community. We thought it right to establish the broad principles on which this development should be based. In each field of activity we considered, the Community showed that it could agree not just on broad principles but also upon practical decisions and a programme of work for the institutions of the Community, to nut the principles into effect. The principles and the decisions are recorded in a communiqué issued at the end of the meeting, copies of which have been made available in the library of the House, and which I am arranging to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The main decision of the summit conference was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and mone-

tary union; and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.
On the monetary side, the meeting agreed on the need for Community mechanisms to defend the fixed but adjustable parities between member countries' currencies which will be an essential basis for economic and monetary union. The meeting agreed that the Community should move to the second stage of economic and monetary union on 1st January, 1974, with a view to its completion by the end of this decade. A number of detailed steps to this end were decided, including the establishment of a European Monetary Co-operation Fund before 1st April, 1973.

Mr. Heffer: What mandate was there?

The Prime Minister: The nine Governments agreed to adopt a common attitude in working for international monetary reform based on principles which were agreed. The meeting also agreed upon the need to co-ordinate economic policies more closely, and instructed Economic and Finance Ministers urgently to work out measures for fighting inflation.
Structural and regional imbalances which could affect the realisation of economic and monetary union will be tackled on a Community basis. A Regional Development Fund will be set up before the end of 1973 to be financed from the Community's own resources. The problems of industrial change and structural under-employment have thus been recognised as increasingly a Community responsibility.
A programme of action is to be decided by the end of next year for achieving the establishment of a single industrial base by the removal of fiscal, legal and technical barriers to internal trade and industrial co-operation within the Community. This should permit our manufacturers to realise the potential of a single market of 250 million people. Community institutions have been commissioned to formulate a policy for ensuring the Community's energy supplies.
The Community will draw up between now and 1st January, 1974 a broad programme of action in the social field, aimed at improving working conditions


and conditions of life generally. More attention will also be given to the problems of the environment and a programme of action is to be established before 31st July, 1973.
So far I have been concerned with the Community's internal development. But all those attending the meeting were conscious that the enlargement of the Community would bring it increased power and influence, and so increased responsibility, outside its own borders. We considered the development of the Community's external relations in a number of fields.
First, we discussed at length the problems of the developing countries, and agreed that decisions should be taken in the course of next year—the first year of enlargement—both to improve generalised preferences and to increase the volume of official aid.
Secondly, we made clear the Community's determination to play its part in ensuring the success of multilateral trade negotiations in the GATT. The Community is to prepare its own position by 1st July, 1973, and the conference called for the completion of the negotiations in 1975. We recognised that the United States, Japan and the European Community are the three centres of industrial and economic power in the democratic world, and that we must establish a just and stable relationship between them.
Thirdly, we reaffirmed the Community's readiness for co-operation with the countries of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union.
As the Community moves forward it becomes increasingly important to consider the international political implications of Community policies. Decisions were taken to ensure that this is done. A second report on methods of improving political co-operation is to be produced by Foreign Ministers by 30th June, 1973. Foreign Ministers will meet more frequently, and will work for common medium and long-term positions in foreign policy.
We also considered the implications of enlargement for the functioning of the Community and its institutions. Some improvements were decided upon, including a strengthening of the powers of control of the European Parliamentary Assembly. Others will be the subject of

further study. In all this it will be the pace and direction of the Community's development which will show what institutional improvements are necessary.
It augurs well for the enlarged Community and for this country as a member of it that the meeting was able to reach positive and specific decisions over such a wide range of matters, on the basis of principles on which we were all agreed. It was clear that the achievement of enlargement had given a new impetus to the Community's development.
The European Union for which we have agreed to aim is a reaffirmation of the best in our continent since the war. This time Britain was there as a member. And as I said to the House when I returned from Paris in May last year,
I believe that this opens the prospect of a degree of unity, and thus of peace and prosperity, in Western Europe which our continent has never seen before …
I added then that this would be—now I can say that it will be—
of profound significance for Britain, for Europe and for the whole world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 35.]

Mr. Harold Wilson: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman back to these shores, and before putting certain questions. I should like to make two comments about procedure. I do not make too much of the first, because it has happened under successive Governments. As a courtesy, a copy of the statement is normally in the hands of the Opposition some 15 minutes before it is to be made, but on this occasion it was only two minutes. At least when that happened we used to apologise for it, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was just a nice, old-fashioned gentlemanly procedure that we used to follow.
Secondly, one would have thought that between Friday and today the communiqué could have been made available as a White Paper. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it would be and I presume that for the sake of the records of the House in any case he will lay the communiqué before the House.
I have these questions for the right hon. Gentleman on his statement. First, on regional policy, which has been so markedly publicised; would he state what


assurance he has received from his European colleagues that the amount of money coming across the Channel, across the exchanges, for British regional development, when this is all worked out, will match what he has already conceded will go from Britain across the Channel, across the exchanges, to the Community for the European agriculture welfare state?
Secondly, having committed himself to full-scale European union by 1980, a concept which has not been defined in the communiqué or in the discussions, would he say exactly what he on behalf of this country understands by the concept of full-scale European union by 1980?
Thirdly, having committed himself to European economic and monetary union by 1st January, 1974, with a co-operation fund some nine months earlier, and remembering the warnings that he was given in last week's debate as to the implications of such a union, would he say what he understands will be the implications of this union and what obligations for Britain will be entailed by it?
Fourthly—again one has to rely on Press reports, which may not be fully accurate—would he say what general discussions there were in relation to the Third World and particularly overseas aid? Is it in fact the case that the British Government were not prepared to accept the obligations asked for in relation to the Lester Pearson Plan and the provision of official aid—and I repeat "official aid"—which he pressed very much on the then Labour Government several years ago, saying that we should have accepted them?
Fifthly, as he is concerned to gain what manifestly he does not command—the full-hearted consent of the country—as well as a kind of mini-consent by Parliament, would he now make a Ministerial broadcast to the country on the achievements of the summit and his role in it? In the course of it, would he explain to the country that he entered into these commitments without what he had pledged—the full-hearted consent of the British people?

The Prime Minister: I regret that the Leader of the Opposition did not receive the statement at the normal time of a quarter past three.
As for publication of the communiqué, I said in my statement that I would circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The roneoed version was placed in the Library first thing this morning, and it seemed to us that the quickest way would be to publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and it will appear there tomorrow.
It is firmly and clearly said in the communiqué that regional policy is now to be the responsibility of the Community and the fund will be established by the end of next year. The criteria for the operation of the fund and the amount that goes into the fund from the budget will be decided in the perfectly normal way, by the Council of Ministers, on which we have our full powers.
Our concept of a European union is the same that this country has always had, which is that in developing institutions one develops them to meet the needs of the organisation concerned. In this respect I mention not only the importance that the Heads of Government attached to regional policy, industrial policy, and social policy, as well as foreign policy—they already attach importance to the economic and financial policy—but also the way in which the institutions will be developing over the next eight years to meet these requirements. What we have arranged is that before the end of 1975 the Council of Ministers will examine the progress made in each of these respects and will decide where institutional developments have to take place before 1980.
As for monetary union, it is the second stage on which we are to enter by 1st January, 1974, not the final stage. The requirements for that have been laid down by the Finance Ministers.
As for the Third World, although the point was not embodied in the communiqué, we accepted that there could be an increase to 15 per cent. in the goods coming into this country from the developing world. The communiqué accepts that there could be a substantial increase.
We do not accept the 0·7 per cent. for official aid. We have never done so and I never urged the Opposition to do so when they were in government. Our view has always been that we should accept the target of 1 per cent. of the GNP as a combination of official and private aid.
Our percentage is 1·43 of the gross national product which is very substantial indeed. We have moved up from 0·37 per cent. to 0·41 per cent. in official aid and, with the volume increasing, that percentage will also increase. But we are not prepared almost to double the amount of official aid with the consequences of that in a very much increased burden of total overseas aid, or restricting unofficial aid, for the simple reason that we believe that private aid, which carries know-how as well, as I have often told the House, is in many ways more valuable to developing countries than is official aid.
I was not proposing a Ministerial broadcast on TV, which would give the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition the right to reply, because I have my own audience and he can find his.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about a copy of the statement and also about the publication of the communiqué. I ask him to think again about a White Paper, because it is sometimes useful to have these things in a regular series and not just in HANSARD.
It was a decision of his predecessor that the Leader of the Opposition should have an automatic right of reply to a Ministerial broadcast. It was not conceded to some Labour Leaders of the Opposition. I am surprised that he has not taken advantage of that, because he seems very pleased with himself about the summit and the country would like to know why he is so pleased with himself and to hear the reply, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly said.
May I ask him now to answer the questions that I put to him? I thank him for what he said about overseas aid, but would he say whether he got an assurance, and what assurance he got, that the amount of money coming to Britain for regional development will equal what we are paying to France and other countries for agricultural development? Did he not satisfy himself about that before he entered his state of euphoria on Saturday morning? [An HON MEMBER: "That was the brandy."] I do not think it was the brandy. Would he answer the question? How does he define in his mind what he put on behalf of Britain in the talks as full-scale European union by 1980 and what does lie intend a European economic

and monetary union to mean? It is not unreasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer those questions.

The Prime Minister: I understand that I said that total aid was 1·43 per cent. I should have said that it was 1·14 per cent.
As for the amount of money on regional development, I said quite clearly that the amount of the budget of the Community and how that budget was to be allocated was not a matter for the Heads of Governments to decide. What we have—and the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny this—is full acceptance by the Community of responsibility for providing the resources for the regional policy. That is the position. We shall be a member of the Council of Ministers with our full powers in deciding the amount.
Monetary policy is set out clearly in the communiqué, leaving aside the establishment of the fund by next Spring and the obligations by the end of the next year—this we fully accept—again we have full powers in the Council of Ministers over future progress. This applies also to the movement towards European union. We shall be there as a full member with full control.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend help a little further with the concept of European union which gives rise to some doubt and concern because of its federal implications? We understand from paragraph 16 of the communiqué that the institutions of the Community, presumably including the Commission, will be producing a report by the end of 1975 on the structural framework. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend tell us what Her Majesty's Government will do in the next two years by way of communicating to them a British point of view on this concept and whether Parliament will be taken into counsel on this matter which so vitally affects the future of our Parliamentary institutions?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The British point of view will be communicated constantly through our member of the Council of Ministers, who is the British Foreign Secretary. When the report is published at the end of 1975 the matter will come to the Council of Ministers for decision. Indeed, it is foreseen in the communiqué that there will be a summit meeting of Heads of


Government to consider the report and to decide how further progress should be made. So in all these respects the British voice will be clearly heard, and these matters will be constantly discussed in Parliament.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his refusal to give a Ministerial broadcast? It is important that he should do so in order that the Opposition can reply. We are very anxious to hear their considered views on this matter. However, I must add a word of caution, because the last time we had a Ministerial broadcast, on the Ugandan Asians, the Opposition did not exercise their right of reply.
On regional policies, which I welcome, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the coming into being of a Community regional policy will not prevent the Government from continuing their present regional policies? The right hon. Gentleman said that the amount of the fund is still to be decided. Will he indicate that it will be large enough to enable the regions to have all the aid which they are now receiving?

The Prime Minister: I have not given any indication as to what the total amount will be, because this is a matter to be decided in the Community budget. It is important to note that it is coming from Community funds, and these decisions can be taken by the Council of Ministers. On general regional policy, all Heads of Government felt that there was no sense in each member country trying to outbid the others for mobile industry in those central regions where further industrial development is not required. I should think this is absolutely sensible, because it is only by having limits on the existing prosperous regions that we can guide industry into the other regions. This is what we do in our own regional policy, and it is absolutely right for Europe as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition seems sceptical. He may recall that on the question of credit for international trade we have always made considerable attempts to prevent individual countries from outbidding each other to no purpose. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentle-

man agrees. His colleagues did not appear to do so. It is therefore sensible that for those areas which are prosperous, individual members of the Community should not be outbidding each other by inducements to regional development. This was foremost in the minds of Heads of Governments.

Mr. Knox: Whilst congratulating my right hon. Friend on his part in a very highly successful summit conference, may I ask whether he is aware that some of us, who are very strong pro-Marketeers, are a little disappointed about the lack of progress concerning democratic election to the European Parliament? Must we await another summit conference before progress is made on this score?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I may explain the position on this matter, because I think there has been a genuine misunderstanding. There is a difference between the European Parliament having more powers of democratic control and being directly elected. The question of the European Parliament having more democratic control was fully accepted by the Heads of Government and embodied in the communiqué—and the date fixed for this was arranged. The responsibility for putting forward a proposal for direct election is deliberately placed, under Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, on the European Parliament itself. Therefore, my view was that it was not up to the Heads of Government to tell the European Parliament whether it should ask for direct elections. What is more, I believe that any proposal which came from the European Parliament should come only after British Members of Parliament are members of it. I therefore took the view that I would strongly support the European Parliament having more powers of democratic control, but would not at this summit support Heads of Government telling the European Parliament what it ought to do before British Members of Parliament were members of it. It is therefore up to the European Parliament now to consider whether it wishes to make recommendations about direct elections to the European Parliament. In doing so, I hope that it will take fully into account the relationships which will have to be established between any directly elected European Parliament and the national parliaments.

Mr. Jay: Is the suggestion correct that these proposed regional aid payments would amount to £20 million a year for all nine countries as against the £500 million a year which we alone shall have to pay into the Agricultural Fund? If not, what is the figure?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that his last figure is his customary gross exaggeration. I have already told the House that no figures were discussed for the regional fund.

Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his success in persuading his European colleagues to give the highest priority to regional policies has earned the gratitude of people living in areas such as South Fylde and other parts of Lancashire where regional policies are of paramount importance to their future?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I think the regions of this country realise full well the importance of a Community regional policy. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite knew the contempt in which they were held by their Socialist colleagues in Europe they, too, might think again.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Whilst accepting that the Prime Minister obviously did not negotiate a figure for regional intervention, surely some scale of intervention must have been discussed? Otherwise those talks would not have been meaningful. Is he now prepared to tell us whether that scale was in any way commensurate with the needs of the regions, with the £300 million-odd paid to those regions by the Labour Administration in the summer of 1970, and whether it bears any relationship to the princely ransom that is paid to French peasants?

The Prime Minister: I have already told the House that there was no discussion of amounts or of the Budget by the Heads of Government, because it is not the responsibility of the Heads of Government to settle the budget of the Community. The Community is not taking over the whole of regional policy. The Labour Party has always asked that a British Government should be free to continue their policies on regional aid.

Mr. Marten: Concerning European union, does the Prime Minister's statement of 24th May last year still remain

—that democratic control would remain with the Council of Ministers and that there would be no federal set-up?
On regional policy, it would help the House if my right hon. Friend could give the minimum figure which would be acceptable to the British Government.
On energy policy, did my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that British North Sea oil remains British and does not disappear into the Community pool?

The Prime Minister: I have always refused to enter into the arguments about federalism and confederalism because I believe them to be a sterile exercise. I was therefore glad that the Heads of Government agreed with the British approach in all these fields, in developing these institutions as they are required.
On the question of regional policy. I repeat again that no amounts were discussed because it is not the responsibility of Heads of Government to settle the Community budget.
As far as energy resources are concerned, what we have agreed is that proposals should be put forward in order to ensure the supplies of energy which Europe will need for the rest of this century. This was a major decision. Of course, as far as individual supplies are concerned, they are under the control of national Governments—coal is here, and oil is offshore, and so on.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I take with appropriate contempt the recent statement by the right hon. Gentleman when he referred to the leaders of social parties in Europe, by whom he must have meant Social Democratic leaders or leaders of Democratic Socialist parties. He has made this jibe before, and they have repudiated him. Can he give names, and give chapter and verse in this case? They have publicly repudiated that statement.
But, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman has now got his composure back, may I ask him whether he will deal with the question, which he was, possibly, answering, that by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner)? He began by referring to the priorities given to regional policies. Was any priority given to regional policies, or was this not just one more thing listed—to please the right hon. Gentleman,


since each one of the Nine got something listed last week? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us, is he satisfied, first, that we shall got as much back on our regional policies as the French and other agricultural countries get back on theirs? He has not answered that. Second, since he has referred to our desire that there shall be no European control of our freedom to develop our own regional policies, will he now say, in answer to what I put to him last week, whether he is satisfied that the regional policies and powers of the Government, who are dealing with regional development, are free, including the Steel Board, and the nationalised industries, and that they will not be interferred with by European developments?

The Prime Minister: What I would tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the whole question of regional policy is that we have our powers in the Council of Ministers, which enable us to ensure that the decisions reached have our agreement. That is the basis on which the Community works. I tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly, if he does not yet understand it, that there is no single arrangement in the Community which says that each country financially is to have back exactly what it puts in. He must realise what he accepted at the time he was negotiating—that the advantages for industry and trade in this country in an enlarged Community are much greater than other countries are going to get. This is the reason why there cannot be any arguments on the grounds which he put forward. The amounts under the regional policy will he negotiated during the coming year. It is because the right hon. Gentleman is so sour at any sort of success that he displays his contemptible attitude today.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that his announcement on European co-operation in dealing with inflation is very much welcomed on this side of the House? Will he say whether, as part of that co-operation, he intends to support the plan of M. Barre on the need for external tariffs and a freeze on agricultural prices?

The Prime Minister: These matters will be discussed by the Finance Ministers on 30th and 31st October—in a week's time. Therefore I should prefer not to indicate at this moment the course which

those talks will take. Suffice it to say that the date fixed shows the urgency being attached to this matter.

Mr. John Mendelson: With further reference to the statement devoted to regional economic aid, surely the Prime Minister must be aware that in the official briefing given to the West German Press, a delegation of the Federal German Republic pointed out that they had resisted in the discussions at the summit conference any commitment to large-scale funds being devoted for these purposes. Surely the House is entitled to tell the right hon. Gentleman that what is meaningful is the amount and not only the general statement. In view of the fact that these commitments to European economic and monetary union are central to his Administration, will he not now agree that the strongest possible case exists for going to the country before 1st January, or early next year, to see whether he has a mandate for these far-reaching policies?

The Prime Minister: No. The only thing which interests the country is whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have ceased to be irrelevant and are moving into the modern world.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If there is any magnanimity left, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many of us and, I believe, a very great number of people in the country as a whole, who would wish to take this opportunity of congratulating him on the culmination of many years of dedicated work in this cause which he advocated in his maiden speech in this House—and which I very well remember because I took the opposite view in that debate? May I ask him to believe that the time will come—and the sooner the better—when the Opposition will realise that they are getting absolutely nowhere by these cribbing, cabining and destructive criticisms which they are levelling against one of the greatest achievements this country has ever known?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for what he said. On the latter part of his question, I so much agree with him.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would the Prime Minister be a bit more specific about energy policy? Is that policy going to be decided within the Coal and


Steel Community? Is that one of the prime reasons why our own National Union of Mineworkers has already decided to participate in the Steel and Coal Community? On another matter, will he say what progress is being made in establishing in this Parliament the machinery for ensuring that we send to Strasbourg some of the most bloody minded Members from this House to put some democratic content into the European Parliament and for ensuring that our Members are elected by the three respective parties and are not the subject of patronage within the Whips Office?

The Prime Minister: On the last part of the qustion, so far as this side is concerned, we have made our own plans and we find no difficulties in this matter whatever. So far as hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned, perhaps they would discuss that with their leader.
On the question of energy policy, this will be a matter for the Council of Ministers and not only the Coal and Steel Community, because it involves supplies of nuclear energy and also supplies of oil. I think what was brought home very vividly to the Heads of Government, in view of the shortage of energy which will become apparent in the United States in a very few years' time, was the competition which there will be in the Western world for the existing supplies of energy. Forward planning ought therefore to be undertaken, as this is now a matter of the utmost urgency. This was accepted.

Mr. Shore: I hope that the Prime Minister will try to treat a little more seriously the serious questions being put to him. This is still the House of Commons and he would do well to realise it. The first question which I should like to put to him is this: can he tell us, if this European union is to be achieved by 1980, a union which goes far beyond what we already understood to be economic and monetary union, how this can be achieved without the loss of essential national sovereignty which, we were told in the White Paper, and earlier, would not be at stake? Secondly, will he tell us in what particular the agreement on regions he has brought back with such pride from Brussels differs

from the agreement already reached by the Six on 26th March, 1972, to set up a common regional policy and which it then pledged to bring into force by 1st October this year? What he appears to have done is to get reagreement to an agreement 15 months late.
Lastly, may I ask him this? Does this communiqué amount to a treaty, as the last communiqué issued from the Hague amounted to a treaty, and, if so, did the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the people with whom he was dealing in Paris that he was speaking for himself and not the Opposition and the country in entering into this obligation?

The Prime Minister: I have never pretended to speak for the Opposition, and the other Heads of Government knew perfectly well that I was not doing so. They know the sort of thing that the Opposition are saying about the treaty. The communique is not a treaty and it does not have to be ratified by Parliament. It is a communiqué, which is a declaration agreed by the Heads of Government meeting in conference. Regional policy is on a firm basis affecting the Nine and not merely the Six. It is not a social fund but a separate regional fund. It is now accepted as a full regional policy for the whole of the Nine. That is a major step forward. That is what we achieved at the summit. Other Heads of Government and other countries are interested in the Community having a full regional policy, and the matter was discussed more than ever before. That includes the Italians, the Germans and the Dutch. All member countries have an interest in it but some particularly so—for example, the Italians and ourselves.
In all these areas in which we have laid down policy in the communiqué, including economic union, the institutions of the Community will be adapted and will grow to meet the requirements. In 1975 the Council of Ministers will meet and then, if necessary, a summit conference will be held to consider the progress which has been made and to decide what further should be done by 1980. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would approve of a programme which moves step by step and which Parliament can debate at every stage. Surely that is the typical approach of a British Parliament.

Following is the Communiqué:
The Heads of State or of Government of the countries of the enlarged Community, meeting for the first time on the 19th and the 20th of October in Paris, at the invitation of the President of the French Republic, solemnly declare:
—at the moment when enlargement, decided in accordance with the rules in the Treaties and with respect for what the six original member states have already achieved, is to become a reality and to give a new dimension to the Community;
—at a time when world events are profoundly changing the international situation;
—now that there is a general desire for detente and co-operation in response to the interest and the wishes of all peoples;
—now that serious monetary and trade problems require a search for lasting solutions that will favour growth with stability;
—now that many developing countries see the gap widening between themselves and the industrial nations and claim with justification an increase in aid and a fairer use of wealth;
—now that the tasks of the Community are growing, and fresh responsibilities are being laid upon it, the time has come for Europe to recognise clearly the unity of its interests, the extent of its capacities and the magnitude of its duties; Europe must be able to make its voice heard in world affairs, and to make an original contribution commensurate with its human, intellectual and material resources. It must affirm its own views in international relations, as befits its mission to be open to the world and for progress, peace and co-operation.

To this end:

(i) The member states reaffirm their determination to base the development of their Community on democracy, freedom of opinion, the free movement of people and of Ideas and participation by their peoples through their freely elected representatives.
(ii) The member states are determined to strengthen the Community by establishing an economic and monetary union, the guarantee of stability and growth, the foundation of their solidarity and the indispensable basis for social progress, and by ending disparities between the regions;
(iii) Economic expansion is not an end in itself. Its first aim should be to enable disparities in living conditions to be reduced. It must take place with the participation of all the social partners. It should result in an improvement in the quality of life as well as standards of living. As befits the genius of Europe, particular attention will be given to intangible values and to protecting the environment, so that progress may really be put at the service of mankind;
(iv) The Community is well aware of the problem presented by continuing underdevelopment in the world. It affirms its determination within the framework of a worldwide policy towards the developing countries,

to increase its effort in aid and technical assistance to the least favoured people. It will take particular account of the concerns of those countries towards which, through geography, history and the commitments entered into by the Community, it has specific responsibilities;
(v) The Community reaffirms its determination to encourage the development of international trade. This determination applies to all countries without exception.

The Community is ready to participate as soon as possible, in the open-minded spirit that it has already shown, and according to the procedures laid down by the IMF and the GATT in negotiations based on the principle of reciprocity. These should make it possible to establish, in the monetary and commercial fields, stable and balanced economic relations, in which the interests of the developing countries must be taken fully into account.

(vi) The member States of the Community, in the interests of good neighbourly relations which should exist among all European countries whatever their régime, affirm their determination to pursue their policy of detente and of peace with the countries of Eastern Europe, notably on the occasion of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the establishment on a sound basis of a wider economic and human cooperation;
(vii) The construction of Europe will allow it, in conformity with its ultimate political objectives, to affirm its personality while remaining faithful to its traditional friendships and to the alliances of the member States, and to establish its position in world affairs as a distinct entity determined to promote a better international equilibrium, respecting the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The member States of the Community, the driving force of European construction, affirm their intention to transform before the end of the present decade the whole complex of their relations into a European Union.

Economic and monetary questions

1. The Heads of State or of Government reaffirm the determination of the Member States of the enlarged European Communities irreversibly to achieve the economic and monetary Union, confirming all the elements of the instruments adopted by the Council and by the representatives of Member States on 22nd March, 1971, and 21st March, 1972.

The necessary decisions should be taken in the course of 1973 so as to allow the transition to the second stage of the economic and monetary Union on 1st January, 1974, and with a view to its completion not later than 31st December, 1980.

The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the principle of parallel progress in the different fields of the economic and monetary Union.

2. They declared that fixed but adjustable parities between their currencies constitute an essential basis for the achievement of the Union and expressed their determination to set up within the Community mechanisms for defence and mutual support which would enable Member States to ensure that they are respected.

They decided to institute before 1st April, 1973, by solemn instrument, based on the EEC Treaty, a European Monetary Co-operation Fund which will be administered by the Committee of Governors of Central Banks within the context of general guidelines on economic policy laid down by the Council of Ministers. In an initial phase the Fund will operate on the following bases:
—concerted action among the Central Banks for the purposes of narrowing the margins of fluctuation between their currencies;
—the multilateralisation of positions resulting from interventions in Community currencies and the multilateralisation of intra-Community settlements;
—the use for this purpose of a European monetary unit of account;
—the administration of short term monetary support among the Central Banks;
—the very short term financing of the agreement on the narrowing of margins and short term monetary support will be regrouped in the Fund under renovated mechanism; to this end, short term support will be adjusted on the technical plane without modifying its essential characteristics and in particular without modifying the consultation procedures they involve.

The competent bodies of the Community shall submit reports;
—not later than 30th September, 1973, on the adjustment of short term support;
—not later than 31st December, 1973, on the conditions for the progressive pooling of reserves.

3. The Heads of State or of Government stressed the need to co-ordinate more closely the economic policies of the Community and for this purpose to introduce more effective Community procedures.

Under existing economic conditions they consider that priority should be given to the fight against inflation and to Ministers to adopt, on the occasion of the enlarged Council of 30th and 31st October, 1972, precise measures in the various fields which lend themselves to effective and realistic short term action towards these objectives and which take account of the respective situations of the countries of the enlarged Community.

4. The Heads of State or of Government express their determination that the Member States of the enlarged Community should contribute by a common attitude to directing the reform of the international monetary system towards the introduction of an equitable and durable order.

They consider that this system should be based on the following principles:
—fixed but adjustable parities
—the general convertibility of currencies
—effective international regulation of the world supply of liquidities
—a reduction in the rôle of national currencies as reserve instruments

—the effective and equitable functioning of the adjustment process
—equal rights and duties for all participants in the system
—the need to lessen the unstabilising effects of short term capital movements
—the taking into account of the interests of the developing countries.

Such a system would be fully compatible with the achievement of the Economic and Monetary Union.

Regional Policy

5. The Heads of State or of Government agreed that a high priority should be given to the aim of correcting, in the Community, the structural and regional imbalances which might affect the realisation of Economic and Monetary Union.

The Heads of State or of Government invite the Commission to prepare without delay, a report analysing the regional problems which arise in the enlarged Community and to put forward appropriate proposals.

From now on they undertake to co-ordinate their regional policies. Desirous of directing that effort towards finding a Community solution to regional problems, they invite the Community Institutions to create a Regional Development Fund. This will be set up before 31 December 1973, and will be financed, from the beginning of the second phase of Economic and Monetary Union, from the Community's own resources. Intervention by the fund in co-ordination with national aids should permit, progressively with the realisation of Economic and Monetary Union, the correction of the main regional imbalances in the enlarged Community and particularly those resulting from the preponderance of agriculture and from industrial change and structural underemployment.

Social Policy

6. The Heads of State or Heads of Government emphasised that they attached as much importance to vigorous action in the social field as to the achievement of the Economic and Monetary Union. They thought it essential to ensure the increasing involvement of labour and management in the economic and social decisions of the Community. They invited the Institutions, after consulting labour and management, to draw up, between now and 1st January, 1974, a programme of action providing for concrete measures and the corresponding resources particularly in the framework of the Social Fund, based on the suggestions made in the course of the Conference by Heads of State and Heads of Government and by the Commission.

This programme should aim, in particular, at carrying out a co-ordinated policy for employment and vocational training, at improving working conditions and conditions of life, at closely involving workers in the progress of firms, at facilitating on the basis of the situation n the different countries the conclusion of collective agreements at European level in appropriate fields and at strengthening and coordinating measures of consumer protection.

industrial, Scientific and Technological Policy

7. The Heads of State or of Government consider it necessary to seek to establish a single industrial base for the Community as a whole.

This involves the elimination of technical barriers to trade as well as the elimination, particularly in the fiscal and legal fields, of barriers which hinder closer relations and mergers between firms, the rapid adoption of a European company statute, the progressive and effective opening up of public sector purchases, the promotion on a European scale of competitive firms in the field of high technology, the transformation and conversion of declining industries, under acceptable social conditions, the formulation of measures to ensure that mergers affecting firms established in the Community are in harmony with the economic and social aims of the Community, and the maintenance of fair competition as much within the Common Market as in external markets in conformity with the rules laid down by the treaties.

Objectives will need to be defined and the development of a common policy in the field of science and technology ensured. This policy will require the co-ordination, within the Institutions of the Community, of national policies and joint implementation of projects of interest to the Community.

To this end, a programme of action together with a precise time-table and appropriate measures should be decided by the Community's Institutions, before 1st January, 1974.

Environmental Policy

8. The Heads of State or of Government emphasised the importance of a Community environmental policy. To this end they invited the Community Institutions to establish, before 31st July, 1973, a programme of action accompanied by a precise time-table.

Energy Policy

9. The Heads of State and Heads of Government deem it necessary to invite the Community Institutions to formulate as soon as possible an energy policy guaranteeing certain and lasting supplies under satisfactory economic conditions.

External relations

10. The Heads of State or of Government affirm that their efforts to construct their Community attain their full meaning only in so far as Member States succeed in acting together to cope with the growing world responsibilities incumbered on Europe.

11. The Heads of State or of Government are convinced that the Community must, without detracting from the advantages enjoyed by countries with which it has special relations, respond even more than in the past to the expectations of all the developing countries;

With this view, it attaches essential importance to the policy of association as confirmed in the Treaty of Accession and to the fulfilment of its commitments to the countries of the Mediterranean Basin with which agreements have been or will be concluded, agreements

which should be the subject of an overall and balanced approach.

In the same perspective, in the light of the results of the UNCTAD Conference and in the context of the Development Strategy adopted by the United Nations, the Institutions of the Community and Member States are invited progressively to adopt an overall policy of development co-operation on a worldwide scale, comprising, in particular, the following elements:
—the promotion in appropriate cases of agreements concerning the primary products of the developing countries with a view to arriving at market stabilisation and an increase in their exports;
—the improvement of generalised preferences with the aim of achieving a steady increase in imports of manufactures from the developing countries;

In this connection the Community Institutions will study from the beginning of 1973 the conditions which will permit the achievement of a substantial growth target:
—An increase in the volume of official financial aid.
—An improvement in the financial conditions of this aid, particularly in favour of the least developed countries, bearing in mind the recommendations of the OECD Development Assistance Committee.

These questions will be the subject of studies and decisions in good time during 1973.

12. With regard to the industrial countries, the Community is determined, in order to ensure the harmonious development of world trade:
—to contribute, while respecting what has been achieved by the Community, to a progressive liberalisation of international trade by measures based on reciprocity and relating to both tariffs and non-tariff barriers;
—to maintain a constructive dialogue with the United States, Japan, Canada and its other industrialised trade partners in a forthcoming spirit, using the most appropriate methods.

In this context the Community attaches major importance to the multilateral negotiations in the context of GATT which it will participate in accordance with its earlier statement.

To this end, the Community Institutions are invited to decide not later than 1st July, 1973 on a global approach covering all aspects affecting trade.

The Community hopes that an effort on the part of all partners will allow these negotiations to be completed in 1975.

It confirms its desire for the full participation of the developing countries in the preparation and progress of these negotiations which should take due account of the interests of those countries.

Furthermore, having regard to the agreements concluded with the EFTA countries which are not members, the Community declares its readiness to seek with Norway a speedy solution to the trade problems facing


that country in its relations with the enlarged Community.

13. In order to promote détente in Europe, the Conference reaffirmed its determination to follow a common commercial policy towards the countries of Eastern Europe with effect from 1st January, 1973; Member States declared their determination to promote a policy of co-operation, founded on reciprocity with these countries.

This policy of co-operation is, at the present stage, closely linked with the preparation and progress of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to which the enlarged Community and its Member States are called upon to make a concerted and constructive contribution.

14. The Heads of State or of Government agreed that political co-operation between the Member States of the Community on foreign policy matters had begun well and should be still further improved. They agreed that consultations should be intensified at all levels and that the Foreign Minister should in future meet four times a year instead of twice for this purpose. They considered that the aim of their co-operation was to deal with problems of current interest and, where possible, to formulate common medium and long term positions, keeping in mind, inter alio, the international political implications for and effects of Community policies under construction. On matters which have a direct bearing on Community activities, close contact will be maintained with the Institutions of the Community. They agreed that the Foreign Ministers should produce, not later than 30th June, 1973, a second report on methods of improving political co-operation in accordance with the Luxembourg report.

Reinforcement of Institutions

15. The Heads of State or Government recognised that the structures of the Community had proved themselves, though they felt that the decision-making procedures and the functioning of the Institutions should be improved, in order to make them more effective.

The Community Institutions and, where appropriate, the Representatives of the Governments of Member States are invited to decide before the end of the first stage in the achievement of the economic and monetary Union, on the basis of the report which the Commission, pursuant to the resolution of 22nd March, 1971, is to submit before 1st May, 1973, on the measures relating to the distribution of competences and responsibilities among the Community Institutions and Member States which are necessary to the proper functioning of an economic and monetary Union.

They felt it desirable that the date on which meetings of national Cabinets were normally held should be the same so that the Council of the Communities could organise itself with a more regular timetable.

Desiring to strengthen the powers of control of the European Parliamentary Assembly, independently of the date on which it will be elected by universal suffrage under Article

138 of the Treaty of Rome, and to make their contribution towards improving its working conditions, the Heads of State or Government, while confirming the decision of 22nd April, 1970 of the Council of the Communities, invited the Council and the Commission to put into effect without delay the practical measures designed to achieve this reinforcement and to improve the relations both of the Council and of the Commission with the Assembly.

The Council will, before 30th June. 1973, take practical steps to improve its decision-making procedures and the cohesion of Community action.

They invited the Community Institutions to recognise the right of the Economic and Social Committee in future to advise on its own initiative on all questions affecting the Community.

They were agreed in thinking that, for the purpose in particular of carrying out the tasks laid down in the different programmes of action, it was desirable to make the widest possible use of all the dispositions of the Treaties, including Article 235 of the EEC Treaty.

European Union

16. The Heads of State or Government, having set themselves the major objective of transforming, before the end of the present decade and with the fullest respect for the Treaties already signed, the whole complex of the relations of Member States into a European Union, request the Institutions of the Community to draw up a report on this subject before the end of 1975 for submission to a Summit Conference.

SWAN HUNTER, TYNESIDE (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Mr. Rhodes: In what I concede to be a rather difficult week from the point of view of the business of the House, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The decision of the Secretary of State for Employment not to use the Department's conciliation machinery in the industrial dispute at Swan Hunter, Tyneside, despite the fact that there appears to be a willingness by all parties to the dispute locally to accent such machinery.
I have given you notice in writing, Mr. Speaker, of my intention.
I first thought, when you kindly permitted me to ask a Private Notice Question, not to pursue the matter further, until I heard the unfortunate replies given by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman appeared not to think that


the matter was one of any urgency or that there was any need to intervene. He appeared to think that it was not a matter of great national importance and seemed to treat it as a local matter.

Dame Irene Ward: What does the hon. Gentleman know about it?

Mr. Rhodes: I shall not debate the merits of the comments made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—she should have rather better manners—who questions the capacity of a Member to understand the problems in his constituency. I have never questioned the ability of any Member to understand his area. The hon. Lady might learn a little more civilised treatment of her colleagues who represent Tyneside. However, that is not relevant, and I appreciate that I should not pursue the point further.
The urgency of the matter is obvious when there are 6,000 or more men who are unemployed, or out of work, during an official strike on Tyneside. Of course, there is a spin-off which affects other industries. The strike has been made official and extra assistance is being sought from other shipyards up and down the country. There is a danger of a prolongation of the strike at a time when the economic viability of the shipbuilding industry, and of the Tyneside yards in particular—especially the Walker Yard, which I happen to know because I go there almost every week, which is more than the hon. Lady does—is in question. There is a danger to the future of industries which are located in a region for which the urgency of help has only just been discussed in the Prime Minister's statement although this is a matter of major national importance and urgency.
It is a matter of national significance because of the intransigence, stubbornness and foolhardiness of the Government in adopting a rigid non-intervention policy if an offer from management is for more than £2. That attitude jeopardises seriously the discussions which are to take place on Thursday. Therefore, the matter is of major significance.
For those reasons, the House should be permitted to have an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss the non-intervention by the Secretary of State. I am at a loss to know, since you, Mr. Speaker, have a written copy

of my application, whether it is necessary for me to bring another copy to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) has handed me a written copy of his application, it is not necessary for him to come to the Chair.
The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to give me considerable notice of his intention to make the application. At the same time, he asked permission, which I granted, to ask a Private Notice Question. The terms of his application are,
The decision of the Secretary of State for Employment not to use the Department's conciliation machinery in the industrial dispute at Swan Hunter, Tyneside, despite the fact that there appears to be willingness by all parties to the dispute locally to accept such machinery.
I have carefully considered the exchanges which took place on the Private Notice Question and also the wider repercussions of the matter. In the circumstances, I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's application.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed
That the remaining Lords Amendment to the National Health Service (Family Planning) Amendment Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed; and as soon as a Motion is made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, Mr. Speaker shall put the Question thereon forthwith.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

4.28 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I shall not keep the House for more than a few moments, but I feel that I must oppose the Motion because, despite the disclaimers from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who was kind enough to write to me, and disclaimers made elsewhere, I still fear that the Government may be in the process of setting a dangerous precedent. The House has the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure which considered the matter, and the Committee drew the attention of the House to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House's predecessor which strongly deprecated the giving of extra time by the Government to Private Members' Bills. The Committee said that the question of whether to give Government time for consideration of Lords Amendments


to a Private Member's Bill is a matter for Governments to decide, taking into account previous practice in the House.
There is not much previous practice. I am not sure that there is an occasion in the annals of Parliament which is on all fours with what happened on 16th June. I submit that the Leader of the House should have regard not only to previous practice in the House but to the position of minorities, however small. It is, of course, a small minority which is opposing the Bill. In selectively providing time, the present Administration appear to be following the disastrous precedent of their predecessor, who gave time for the Abortion Act.
I will not refer to the merits of the Bill: it has none. As for the Abortion Act, it has caused such dismay that the Secretary of State for the Social Services felt constrained to set up an inquiry into its working. This illustrates the point which has been made by hon. Members on both sides—that this field is more appropriate to Government than to Private Members' legislation.
I should like to assure my right hon. Friend that concern at the Government's decision, as expressed in this Motion, is not confined to those who, like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), who is indisposed, have opposed the Bill. I wish to register that concern by expressing opposition to this Motion.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on only one point. I do not disagree with the nature of the Bill, but surely the point is that we are seeking to apply a guillotine to a Private Members' Bill. In other words, if this Motion is passed, Mr. Speaker will have no other alternative but immediately to put the question without any opportunity for debate. Therefore, I wonder whether the House is right in applying a guillotine quite happily to a Private Members' Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): It is true that my predecessor expressed strong views about the Government not giving Government time for Private Members' legislation. Indeed, he went on record

about this, not only in the House but when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said.
But what my hon. Friend did not mention, and what is important, is that my right hon. Friend specifically told the Committee that there are occasions when it is right to give time for Lords Amendments to a Private Member's Bill, and that he did not include those circumstances in the same category. In other words, he put Lords Amendments in a separate category from other stages of Private Members' Bills.
The practice of the House, as my hon. Friend said, is not altogether easy to determine in these matters, but I should like to recall what happened on this occasion. Two Lords Amendments were taken together—this answers the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) about the guillotine—by agreement of the House. Amendment No. 2 was agreed to by the House on Friday, 16th June. All that happened was that there was not enough time to vote on Amendment No. 3, which was discussed with it and was purely consequential. Amendment No. 2 was the Amendment of substance.
Therefore, this Bill was frustrated then by one thing and one thing only—lack of time to pass an Amendment which was purely consequential to one which the House had already agreed. It was for that reason that we felt it right to provide this occasion. No further debate is necessary, in our view, because the substance was debated on 16th June.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Before my right hon. Friend sits down. I apologise for not quoting his predecessor in full, but when his predecessor said that there were occasions when it was right to give time for Lords Amendments, presumably he had some precedents in mind. I am not clear what they are. Certainly there are no precedents at all in recent parliamentary history. Could my right hon. Friend refer to that?

Mr. Carr: I think I said that I thought that the practice was difficult to determine. We have to judge cases on their merits and I felt that the case was overwhelming here for the reasons that I


gave. This view of mine was supported by the exceptionally large number of letters that I have had during the Recess from hon. Members on both sides.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the remaining Lords Amendment to the National Health Service (Family Planning) Amendment Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed; and as soon as a Motion is made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, Mr. Speaker shall put the Question thereon forthwith.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

4.35 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order. We are supposed to be debating 633 Lords Amendments, which were dealt with in another place up to Thursday of last week. Some of us have tried to obtain copies of them, only to find that we could not do so until today. This seems to us a scandalous case of a Government determined to get through what is in effect a new Bill—633 Amendments covering 92 pages, or roughly two and a half times the length of the European Communities Bill—in three days, without giving hon. Members on either side any real opportunity to read the Amendments, let alone to debate them and still less, having read them, to move Amendments to them.
I shudder to think what would have happened if the previous Government had given even a gap of four or five days. There would have been justifiable complaints from all over the House. For the present Government to do it seems to me utterly wrong.
What we are supposed to be debating is the whole future of local Government in this country. One noble Lord said that this would be the local government set-up for the next 100 years. If we are to go through 633 Amendments just like that, hardly paying any attention to them, it bodes very ill for the future of local government and even worse for the future of local democracy.
The Minister has probably had only slightly more time than I to look at these Amendments and I acquit him of any responsibility in this matter. But he might have a word with the Leader of the House—I am sorry that he is not here but perhaps a discussion might be arranged behind your Chair, Sir—and this consideration of Lords Amendments might be adjourned to a more suitable time, when every hon. Member will have had a chance of studying all 633 of them. I suggest that such a date might be Tuesday of next week.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I cannot help but have sympathy with the

right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). I appreciate that we have all been given a very short period in which to deal with these Amendments. The 633, of course, contain a large proportion which are purely drafting, a large proportion which are technical and a large proportion which are consolidation. The rest are improvements to the Bill which were agreed on both sides of this House and both sides of another place.
It has been the determination of both sides that this Bill should be a Parliament rather than a Government Bill, and it naturally follows that there have had to be many Amendments and a good deal of give-and-take throughout. It is unfortunate that this procedure has meant that we have run short of time and have had to put it before the House in this short period. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or the House will find as much difficulty as he has expressed in dealing with these Amendments.

Mr. George Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Local Government and Development has not done justice to the House or to my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). I have glanced at some of these Amendments but have certainly not read them all. It is the custom of hon. Members to consult interested parties outside the House whose future is at stake in any Amendments which are proposed. Since we have received these Amendments only today, nobody except Ministers—and they have not had much of a chance—has read these Amendments. We have had them in our hands for only a few hours.
If the Lords were able to take weeks discussing these Amendments, surely we are entitled to have a little further time in which to consider their contents so that we may have an intelligent debate. Major alterations have been made to local boundaries and controversial decisions have been taken. The Minister knows that these matters are by no means non-controversial. Therefore, the Government owes it to the Opposition, and to local government, to give us further time to consider these Amendments before we can get on with the debate.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure to what extent these matters are points of order, but at the moment I am accepting temporarily that they are.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is a serious matter for all who are concerned with the provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members who represent areas outside London are placed in an impossible position. I left instructions at the House to send any Lords Amendments to me on Tyneside as early as possible. What happened was that I received them only this morning, just before catching my flight to London. This is not good enough for those of us who are deeply concerned with these matters. I do not believe there has ever been an occasion when we have faced a situation quite like this. It is not true to say that these Amendments contain no matters of consequence. Therefore, it is crucial that further time must be given to enable us to look at the Amendments which we are supposed to be discussing today, for we may well want to table Amendments to them. Why should we be denied the opportunity of tabling Amendments?

Mr. Brynmor John: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are issues of principle on which the House of Lords has reversed everything which we were told in Committee underlay the principles of the Bill as the Government saw them. The Government have two courses open to them: either to accept those Lords Amendments or to recommend the House to reject them. Whatever course they take, hon. Members surely should be given the opportunity of considering these Amendments so that they may relate to them other areas which are similarly affected and in relation to which the Government may be giving unequal treatment merely because the Government happen to have been defeated in the other place. If the Government are to overturn their declared principles because of expediency in getting the Bill through, then hon. Members will have to consider the matter very seriously.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes) rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think this discussion can go on indefinitely. These are not matters for the Chair. I have no control over Government business. The

Government table the business and I have to consider questions of order.

Mr. Oakes: May I put a new point of order, Mr. Speaker? The House is presented with an unprecedented situation since Amendments have been handed to hon. Members on the morning of the day on which the House it to debate the Bill. The practical point is this, Sir. Will you accept both starred Amendments and manuscript Amendments? I handed a number of Amendments to the Table Office this morning which will not appear on the Order Paper, and I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a starred Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 429.
The difficulty is further compounded by the selection and grouping of Amendments, which hon. Members could not have known until this afternoon. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to take the unusual step in this unprecedented situation of enabling manuscript Amendments to be taken during the course of the debate.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I realised that this matter might be raised and I did try to help as far as I could by publishing the list of suggested grouping of Amendments. I thought that would be helpful, and I will also bear sympathetically in mind the question of manuscript Amendments.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) asked the Minister to postpone the debate to deal with the question which has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman replied obliquely to that matter and in the circumstances tried to deal with the situation as best he could. I am not complaining about the way in which he replied. However, the Government should recognise that this is an extremely important occasion and should deplore what has happened and take some steps to remedy the situation.
May we have a Government undertaking that the Leader of the House will make a statement? The Bill was sent to the House of Lords in a botched form and there were complaints in the other place about the state in which it arrived there. It has now been returned to this House in a form which is quite unprecedented. The House is invited to embark on three days


of debate in a manner which, had not something been said about the situation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, would not apparently have called for any Government statement. I ask that the Leader of the House should at least come to the House and make a statement, either today or at the latest at the beginning of proceedings tomorrow, offering some apology to the House for what has occurred, and that he will go as far as possible to meet our wishes.
The obligation is on the Government. We raise this matter in this form to make the most strenuous objection against what is being done. If we do not object strongly now this practice will be repeated by some future Government or body in a manner which will deprive the House of its rights.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in answer to questions on business last week mentioned the difficulties with which we were faced on this matter. If the House will see how we progress with Amendments today, I give the assurance that I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and will ask him whether he will be good enough tomorrow to inform the House of his intentions. I have sympathy with the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) in raising his point of order, but I think we can make progress and I do not think we shall find the situation as difficult as he thinks. But if we do, my right hon. Friend will come to the House and make a statement.

Mr. John Silkin: Further to that point of order. The Minister is treating the House very well, but it does not meet one important consideration from our point of view. I have no doubt the Minister is right in saying that we shall make a lot of progress, but that may be simply because we have not had time to study these Amendments. That may be regarded as progress in terms of getting the Bill on the Statute Book, but is not progress in terms of giving a proper examination to the Bill. Surely the purpose of the House of Lords is to examine a Bill and to make suggestions to the Commons so that the Commons may think again; it gives an opportunity to the Commons to do that. However, if the

Commons has not had a chance to study Amendments, how can we think again?
I suggest that the Leader of the House make a statement to the House tomorrow, because we understand that he may not be able to do that today, and in the meantime that we adjourn at not later than 11 o'clock tonight, if the Minister is agreeable. It means a great deal of hard work during the late hours of the night for my right hon. and hon. Members and myself to get ahead of the Bill. We do not have that good fairy of a civil servant giving us banks of answers to questions that we are sometimes told that the Department has. If the Minister will accept that, I shall feel that he has done the best he can in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. Graham Page: In so far as I am in control of the business of the House, which I should not have thought that I am, I will do all I can not to go beyond 11 o'clock tonight so that we all have a certain amount of time tomorrow to look at the further Amendments.

Lords Amendments considered.

Resolved,
That the Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill be considered by reference to the following order of Clauses and Schedules, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 to 18, Schedule 3, Clauses 19 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 to 37, Schedule 5, Clauses 38 to 45, Schedule 6, Clause 46, Schedule 7, Clauses 47 to 53, Schedule 9, Clause 64, Schedule 10, Clauses 65 to 78, Schedule 11, Clauses 79 to 98, Schedule 12, Clauses 99 to 167, Schedule 13, Clauses 168 to 175, Schedule 14, Clause 176, Schedule 15, Clause 177, Schedule 16, Clauses 178 and 179, Schedule 17, Clause 180, Schedule 18, Clause 181, Schedule 19, Clause 182, Schedule 20, Clause 183, Schedule 21, Clauses 184 to 187, Schedule 22, Clauses 188 and 189, Schedule 23, Clauses 190 to 195, Schedule 24, Clauses 196 and 197, Schedule 25, Clauses 198 to 207, Schedule 26, Clauses 208 to 210, Schedule 27, Clauses 211 to 213, Schedule 28, Clauses 214 to 240, Schedule 29, Clauses 241 to 258, Schedule 30, Clause 259.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 1

NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN ENGLAND

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at beginning insert:
For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment it is suggested that we should consider also Lords Amendment No. 72.

Mr. Page: These are purely drafting Amendments to say in the first few words of Part I what is the purpose of the whole exercise and, in particular, the purpose of the new areas defined in Clause 1 for England and Clause 20 for Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 2, in line 8, after "Act" insert:
and to any provision corresponding to that Part made by an order under section 243 below

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 44.

Mr. Page: Where a parish is divided under the Bill—that is, between two counties or metropolitan districts—provision is made in Part IV of Schedule 1 for the future parish government of the divided area. Some parishes may be divided, not in the Bill itself, but in the order establishing the non-metropolitan districts, and consequential orders under Clause 243 will be needed to do for those parishes what Part IV of Schedule 1 does for parishes divided in the Bill itself. The first Amendment allows this to be done and the second Amendment is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, leave out from "the" to end of line 17 and insert:
boundaries of which are determined by reference to those of existing boroughs and urban districts and also, in cases where the areas of such boroughs and urban districts are divided by or under this section between two or more new districts, by reference to the boundaries of the new districts.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that the House should consider also Lords Amendments Nos. 31 to 33, Nos. 55 to 57, and Nos. 65 to 69.

Mr. Page: This Amendment has much more meat in it than those with which we have already dealt. The Bill provides for successor parishes to be established in certain small boroughs and urban districts. They will be selected on the advice of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The successor parish must be coterminous with the present borough or urban district if it is to come into effect on 1st April, 1974. Otherwise, because of the difficulty of deciding the boundaries in the time, it will have to wait until after 1st April, 1974, when it can be set up under the permanent machinery being established under Part IV of the Bill.
There is, however, a special case in a handful of small boroughs and urban districts which have been divided between metropolitan districts. Similar cases could arise on the establishment of the patent of non-metropolitan districts by order after recommendation from the Boundary Commission.
These Amendments adapt the general provisions for successor parishes so as to cover also this handful of cases in which existing small boroughs and urban districts are being divided either in the Bill itself or under an order following on a recommendation of the Boundary Commission in relation to the non-metropolitan districts.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is a case in point where it is difficult for us to follow the whole range of Amendments. We take the point that this is meant to cover largely the case where parishes are being established to take the place of the previously existing authority in county areas, but we had discussions about the possibility of extending the provision to enable parishes to be established in urban communities, although they would not take up the whole of the boundary of those urban communities. I refer to the desirability of establishing urban parishes within existing towns.
One at least of the Amendments—on my way to the Chamber I thought that I detected it, but I am not sure now that


I did—seemed to allow this procedure to occur. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point about the limited number of authorities, but I thought that it could be interpreted rather more widely.
As I was one of those who urged that there should be an opportunity for the establishment of urban parishes within existing urban communities, even though the new parish would not be coterminous with the previous borough or urban districts, I am very concerned to know whether the possibility which I thought I had detected is true or false. I fear from what the Minister has said that my hopes that their Lordships have kindly given something which we in this House had urged will prove to be unfounded. It will greatly affect our attitude to certain parts of this Bill in its future development if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us that there are the possibilities for the development of such urban parishes.

Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House, I will seek to assure the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that what he desires—the urban parish which does not take up the whole of the urban district—can come into operation after 1st April, 1974, on the recommendation of the Boundary Commission, but purely from the point of view of the difficulty of the work of fixing the boundaries, we are not asking the Boundary Commission until after 1st April, 1974. These Amendments deal only with those parishes which emerge from the Bill or from an Order made under it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 30, leave out "including one" and insert:
and the corporation of a borough included".

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This drafting Amendment simply expands a phrase which does not necessarily affect the continuation of the rural boroughs as parishes.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1

COUNTIES AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS IN ENGLAND

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 208, column 2, leave out lines 39 to 45.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 6 and 23.

Mr. Page: This is a minor adjustment of the boundary between the new metropolitan district centred on Bury and Rochdale. We divided what was originally one metropolitan district into two metropolitan districts. In between them is the borough of Heywood. The present borough of Heywood lying between the two county boroughs of Rochdale and Bury had a small portion of it jutting into Bury. When we drew the line to start with, it seemed right to cut off this promontory into Bury. After discussion of the Amendment in the House on the first occasion, and after a careful inspection of the area by my officials and the advice they received, we found that there was no case for cutting off this promontory except for a very small proportion.
Therefore, the three Amendments provide for the whole of Heywood, including the western fringes or the western promontory, to be in the district centred on Rochdale.

Mr. Oakes: We on this side welcome the wisdom of the other place in leaving Heywood as a borough intact as to its entry into the new metropolitan district. It always seemed in this House that, by dividing Heywood in the way first suggested, with a very complicated and longwinded part of the Bill excluding wards and almost streets of that borough and putting them into a different metropolitan district, we were usurping the functions of the Boundary Commissioners. It is the job of the Boundary Commissioners to look at such minutiae. It is not the job of the House of Commons to divide wards in this way.
The other House has brought the position back to that originally envisaged and proposed by my friend the late Jack


McCann. It is a great tribute to Jack McCann, who is, alas, no longer with us, and to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler), who right from the start, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, consistently fought for their respective districts of Rochdale and Bury.
It was a great satisfaction to me, who was not only an hon. Friend of Jack McCann in the parliamentary sense of that term but was a close personal friend of his, that shortly before he died one of the last things he realised that the House had done was to effect the division of Bury and Rochdale broadly in the way he wanted it, thus preserving the town and the constituency he loved.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 209, line 38, after "Bramhall" insert "and".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

Mr. Oakes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have separate Divisions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There will be Divisions in due course, if required, when we arrive at the Amendments in question.

Mr. Graham Page: Although it may not be strictly in order on this Lords Amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I join in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) to the late Mr. McCann and say how deeply sorry we are that he is not with us now? I know better than anyone the late Mr. McCann's persistence in any cause which he had at heart and I always appreciated it. He was always co-operative, although determined to get his own way, and when he got his own way he did it in the most pleasant way.
The first two Amendments deal with Wilmslow and the third deals with Poynton. The effect of the first two is to move the urban district of Wilmslow from

Greater Manchester and from the metropolitan district of Stockport into Cheshire, and no doubt into a district based on Macclesfield.
Briefly, the points which were put in another place in favour of the Amendment are as follows. The first was that Wilmslow is closely associated with Alderley Edge, which we had left in Cheshire, and that they are something of twin towns. The second was that the inclusion of Wilmslow in Cheshire will strengthen the administration in that area, and that it is more in Cheshire than in Greater Manchester. Thirdly, a referendum in the Wilmslow area has shown that 95 per cent. of the people there want to remain in Cheshire. Fourthly, there are, as it was expressed in another place, practically no links between Wilmslow and Stockport, although there may well he between Wilmslow and Manchester, and it was said that with the exception of employment there is no justification for Wilmslow going into the Greater Manchester area. It was also said that 61 per cent. of the employed persons in Wilmslow do not work in the Manchester area.
It is true that not a single one of the 86 social organisations in the Wilmslow area has a direct relationship with Manchester. Indeed, the overwhelming majority have a joint membership or association with Alderley Edge.
Next, it was said that if Wilmslow remains in Cheshire it certainly will not affect the viability of Greater Manchester. Finally, it was argued that two-thirds of Wilmslow is in the North Cheshire Green Belt.
I received a petition from 8,936 people in Wilmslow, out of a population of 28,982, pleading that Wilmslow should be in Cheshire.
No doubt Wilmslow has strong links with the conurbation and particularly with Manchester itself, links of work, shopping, travel and so on. For those reasons the Government were originally of the opinion that it belonged more appropriately in Greater Manchester than in Cheshire. I cannot say that I have completely withdrawn from that view. I have argued many times that the links with the conurbation are great, not so much with the metropolitan district in which it was placed as with Manchester itself.
The issue now is whether there are sufficient reasons to challenge the decision of the other place. But the Government do not intend to advise the House to take that course.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am in the unusual and intriguing position of asking the Government to stand by their declared policy. It is said that few Governments have eaten more of their own words than the present Administration. My purpose now is to insist that they stand by just a few words in the Bill as originally drafted.
The Minister's words in support of keeping Wilmslow and Poynton within Greater Manchester are very recent words. His noble Friend Lord Sandford, for whom I have a deep personal regard, said in another place on 16th October:
My right honourable friend Mr. Graham Page received a further deputation from Wilmslow only last week and listened once more to their views. … we in the national Parliament sometimes need to take a wider view, and I submit that this is one such occasion.
The noble Lord also recalled that one of the main criticisms of the Bill as originally drafted was that boundaries had been too tightly drawn. He said that if there had been a mistake it had been to leave out Alderley Edge rather than to take in Wilmslow. I must agree with a very strong passage in the noble Lord's speech in which he said:
Wilmslow, like Marple, like High Lane, like Poynton, are by all objective criteria—geographic, economic, transport, social; whether one looks at migration, housing, trading, shopping, buses, trains, water, employment or administration—is an effective part of the great conurbation of Greater Manchester and the metropolitan district of Stockport."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 16th October, 1972; Vol. 335, c. 1587–1588.]
There could not be a more compelling case for disagreeing with the Amendment.
I understand the feelings of my noble Friend Lord Peddie. He has very close personal links with Wilmslow, and I have very close personal links with him. We have many interests in common, but this is not one of them. He will understand that we in this House are entitled to our view, and I am sure that he would expect us to press the Government in this debate on the Amendment which he carried in another place to stand by their declared policy.
Wilmslow and Poynton are an integral part of Greater Manchester, and are clearly part of its field of influence. The conurbation, and particularly the metropolitan centre, provides their principal source of employment and their main metropolitan shopping, professional and commercial services. The prosperity of these localities is related to their function as residential suburbs. Transport and communications follow the main radial pattern centred on Manchester, and both localities are part of the Selnec transportation study area and of the passenger transport authority area.
They have developed as high-class residential settlements for people working in the conurbation. They are localities which have accumulated their wealth from the conurbation. Thus it is only equitable that they should help to bear some responsibility for solving its problems, which is one of the objects of local government reorganisation. In the past the outer residential areas of the conurbation have from geographical circumstances, in the main, escaped these obligations.
In a memorandum prepared by the Cheshire County Council, stress was laid on the physical separation of these areas from the remainder of the conurbation as a result of the green belt and the likely future effect of the Manchester outer ring road. It is clear from the map that the green belt provides only a narrow break of open land between residential suburbs in this vicinity, and that there is almost continuous development along the main radial routes. The object of the green belt is to preserve those open breaks between the various settlements in the conurbation. If the argument were to be accepted that the metropolitan boundary should follow the green belt at Wilmslow it could apply with equal force in respect of Rochdale, Bolton or Bury. The argument would demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the nature of the conurbation, which is not a continuous built-up area but which nevertheless is functionally very closely knit.
The argument has been advanced by the Cheshire County Council that the Manchester outer ring road would further enhance the separation. This could equally well apply to the M62 motorway in the north of the conurbation. The whole point about major


new roads is that they increase the ease of contact in the conurbation, not that they act as barriers or limits to the sphere of influence of the conurbation centre.
5.15 p.m.
Employment and other statistics indicate that Wilmslow is becoming completely orientated towards the rest of the Greater Manchester conurbation. The Minister mentioned some figures. I should like to give the House some figures that have been made available to me since the Amendment was carried in another place. I am told that Wilmslow is becoming completely orientated as to employment towards the rest of the Greater Manchester conurbation. In 1951, 27·18 per cent. of the residential population were employed in other parts of the Selnec Metropolitan area. In 1966 the proportion had increased to 45·5 per cent., while only 7·25 per cent. were employed in the Cheshire County Area. This employment situation is perfectly understandable in view of the very good road and public transport links which make the centre of the conurbation within 30 to 45 minutes' reach.
Similarly, in shopping, many hon. Members will agree that the pull of the main regional centre in Manchester is most important. The then Ministry of Housing and Local Government in its publication, "The Manchester and Liverpool Conurbation: A Study of the Pattern of Retail Spending in 1961 and a Forecast of the Pattern of Retail Spending in 1981", published in 1970, showed that these areas were all clearly within the primary zone of influence of the Manchester central area as a regional shopping centre. Wilmslow is a sub-regional shopping centre in the same way as Altrincham, Stockport, Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham are.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I lived in Wilmslow for 24 years, and I think that I can speak far better for Wilmslow than some of the people who are sending telegrams to hon. Members. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, people shop not in Chester but in Manchester. They do not work in Chester, they work in Manchester. Because of the reactionary nature of the Cheshire County Council, which has, for example, turned down the comprehensive system

of schooling, it seems to me right that Wilmslow should be inside the Manchester conurbation. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. Morris: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has intervened. He was for a long time a resident of the Wilmslow area, and I always very much regretted that he was not on the other side of the local authority boundary. If he had been, he would have been living in my constituency, and he would have had a very warm welcome there. The point that he has made is often heard on our side of the constituency boundary. My hon. Friend is right, too, to refer to the very expensive propaganda campaign in which Wilmslow has indulged. Since this debate commenced, I have received a telegram from the Chairman of the Wilmslow Urban District Council. He is eminently entitled to put his case. His case was rejected by the right hon. Gentleman within the past two weeks. It was rejected by the Government spokesman in another place and I hope very much that it will be rejected in this House.
I was referring to the question of shopping. I was about to say that Wilmslow is on a more modest scale than most of the other centres to which I referred, namely Altrincham, Stockport, Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham. To argue that Wilmslow now exerts a comparable attraction to central Manchester as a specialised shopping area in the southern section of the conurbation is wholly to misunderstand the true nature of the shopping hierarchy in the conurbation.

Sir John Foster: As the hon. Gentleman is reading from a brief, would he read five or six lines above, about the square footage?

Mr. Morris: I must make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have not been reading from the brief sent to Members of Parliament by the Wilmslow Urban District Council.

Sir J. Foster: No, the county council.

Mr. Morris: As the hon. and learned Gentleman may recall, I was referring earlier to the memorandum submitted by Cheshire County Council. I do not represent Wilmslow. I am not a representative here of the county council. I


believe that I am speaking representatively for the great majority of the people in the intended Greater Manchester conurbation.

Sir J. Foster: Sir J. Foster rose—

Mr. Morris: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to argue the minority view at some other stage. I am arguing what was the Government's view. I am arguing what was the viewpoint of this House as a whole. I do not recall the hon. and learned Gentleman arguing on any recent occasion for a different set-up in the conurbation. My recollection is that on all occasions he supported his right hon. Friend in the submissions that he made on behalf of the Government.
I must proceed with my case. I have said that the Manchester City Council feels very strongly that the Government should not now eat the words spoken by the right hon. Gentleman so recently in this House and even more recently to the representatives of Wilmslow. He did not appear to me to be suffering from acute indigestion. Apparently he does not accept the Amendment carried in another place. He was frank enough to say in the speech with which he opened this debate that he still has his own reservations about the Lords' Amendment.
His reservations are shared by the Manchester and District Council of Churches. The Rev. James Bentley, Chairman of the Local Government Subcommittee, and the Rev. John Nicholson, the General Secretary of the Council, in a letter dated 19th October, 1972, said:
We are writing to you on behalf of the Local Government Sub-committee of the Manchester and District Council of Churches to express our concern at the amendment to the Local Government Bill concerning Wilmslow and Poynton which has been passed by the House of Lords. We acknowledge that this amendment expresses the desire of the majority of inhabitants of those two towns to remain in Cheshire.…
The Manchester and District Council of Churches believes
that this view is contrary to the best interests of the wider community of Greater Manchester. We maintain that the residents of Poynton and Wilmslow have a responsibility to the wider Metropolitan area in which many of them work, and that they have a contribution to make to that wider region.

They therefore pressed me to do everything possible in this debate to keep the Government to the policy which they have commended to this House and in another place.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The House ought to note that the hon. Gentleman said that he was referring to the Local Government Sub-Committee only of the Council of Churches, and this has obviously not gone before the full Council. I advise the hon. Member that his Lordship the Bishop of Chester dissents from this view, and part of his diocese is involved in the Greater Manchester area. In fact, the Council of Churches is speaking somewhat in isolation.

Mr. Morris: I have no wish to excite controversy within the Manchester and District Council of Churches. I did, however, say that the letter I received, dated 19th October, 1972, was signed by the Rev. John Nicholson, the General Secretary of the Manchester and District Council of Churches as well as by the Rev. James Bentley, the Chairman of its Local Government Sub-committee.

Mr. Tom Normanton: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out correctly that Wilmslow is in the diocese of Chester and, therefore, comes within the area covered by the Bishop of Chester; but perhaps it should also be noted—and I am sure the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) will take note of the fact—that the Roman Catholic church in Wilmslow does not come into Manchester. It is another diocese outside Manchester—Shropshire, I think. It therefore places in doubt the full validity of the representations from the Council of Churches from whose statement the hon. Member is now quoting.

Mr. Morris: I cannot call into question the credentials of those who have written to me, namely the General Secretary of the Council and the Chairman of the Local Government Sub-committee. There will be, as in all organisations, different views on a matter as important as this is to the North-West of England. It will be for hon. Members to develop their criticisms of this letter if they are


fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For my part, I believe that the letter reflects majority opinion in the Manchester and District Council of Churches. If it does not, I find it difficult to understand how the general secretary, Rev. John Nicholson, would have signed the letter to right hon. and hon. Members.
5.30 p.m.
It will be clear from the interventions from both sides that this is a deeply important question for those of us who represent constituencies throughout the Manchester conurbation. The people of Wilmslow are entitled to their view, and it is for their representatives to state their case in this debate. I felt it to be my job to reflect the view of representative people in the city of Manchester and, I believe, in the much wider community of the greater Manchester area.
I appeal to the Minister not to accept a case which was rejected in the name of all his right hon. Friends in meeting representatives from Wilmslow within the past few weeks. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider that we have a powerful case to press at the end of the debate. We are asking merely for consistency in government. I have no wish to make things difficult for the Minister. In my view, he will make things difficult for himself if he now decides to vote in favour of the Lords Amendment, against all the arguments which he has adduced both here and outside the House in meeting people from the Manchester conurbation.

Mr. Lomas: I am sorry to intervene again, but I must put another point to my hon. Friend. I have lived for 24 years in Wilmslow, so I know Wilmslow, and, in fact, I think that it belongs to Manchester. But I fought the Macclesfield constituency in 1955, and I accept one point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Although Cheshire is Tory-controlled and totally reactionary, I believe that there is a case to be made for Poynton remaining in Cheshire. I do not consider, however, that there is a case for Wilmslow itself to remain in Cheshire.
Will my hon. Friend distinguish between the two? There is an important distinction here between Wilmslow, a commuter town, a dormitory town of

Manchester, which shops and works within Manchester, and Poynton which is really outside the Manchester conurbation. In my view, there is a good case for Poynton being in the Cheshire area, but Wilmslow should still remain with Manchester.

Mr. Morris: My principal argument has been about Wilmslow. I referred to both Wilmslow and Poynton in speaking about employment, transport, shopping and so forth. It may be said that there is a much stronger case for including Wilmslow in the Manchester conurbation than for including Poynton. I recognise the knowledge of Cheshire which my hon. Friend brings to this debate, but he will appreciate that I have three Amendments on the Paper referring to both Wilmslow and Poynton.
I consider that the boundaries were, if anything, too tightly drawn by the Government. In the House of Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that the Government had been subjected to heavy criticism for drawing the new boundaries too tightly. But he was right to reject out of hand the case put to him by Wilmslow.
I must not take up more of the time of the House since this is a debate in which many hon. Members wish to take part. I appeal to the Minister to stand by his own policy, a policy reiterated at only very recent date both by himself and by his noble Friend Lord Sandford. If he is consistent, he will, I am sure, have full support from this side. I appeal to him to accept my submission that the House should disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Sir J. Foster: I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), when, speaking about the shopping advantages or otherwise as between Wilmslow and Manchester, he quoted a sentence from the county council's observations on this question. The hon. Gentleman took up the reference in that document to the specialist shopping importance of Wilmslow, but, as he was quoting that passage, I wanted him to quote the reasons given by the county council for what it said. If the hon. Gentleman described that statement as entirely wrong, I thought it only fair that the House should know the reasons which


the county council gave for its conclusion.
With a few words omitted—nothing sinister; I wish to save time—the county council refers to the
Even more marked trends … evident in the growth of Wilmslow's importance as a shopping centre",
saying that Wilmslow had been advised by consultants that it
will require not less than 90,000 sq. ft. of additional shopping space in the town",
and then pointing to Wilmslow's easy access from Knutsford, Congleton and Macclesfield. As the hon. Gentleman quoted a sentence which he said was entirely wrong, I thought it right that the House should have the other references giving the reasons for the making of that statement.
It has been said that consistency is often the mark of a second-rate mind. I am sure that the House is wiser than that. It is never a strong argument to say, "You said this the other day, and now you are saying something different: you ought to stand by what you said earlier". It is a matter of opinion. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe was quite right to say that I did not support the claims of Wilmslow on previous occasions. But I have been persuaded by the arguments adduced in another place, which I find overwhelming. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the best way for the House to decide this matter is on the merits, not by reference to what was said on another occasion. It is common form in debate to point to what was said earlier, but that sort of argument does not carry a great deal of weight.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It was not merely "another occasion". The occasions were very recent, within the last few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman rejected representations from Wilmslow, and even more recently his noble Friend backed that rejection in the House of Lords.

Sir J. Foster: They have had a late conversion. It would have been absurd to say to St. Paul, "You took the other view not long ago, so you ought now to be consistent and leave the Christian faith". The hon. Member would have said to St. Paul, "Look what you said only a fortnight before when you denied the divinity of Christ, and now you are

admitting that divinity. You must be consistent."

Mr. Normanton: Mr. Normanton rose—

Sir J. Foster: This is a side issue and I do not wish to get involved in an ecclesiastical debate, especially with my hon. Friend.
Let us look at the arguments on their merits—I suppose that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe would say that St. Paul should have made his name Saul again, too. He took the point about shopping. I should have thought that was a finely divided argument, but to my mind it goes down in favour of Wilmslow. A very strong argument used by the Government on the previous occasion, by the noble Lord Lord Sandford in the other place and by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe was that relating to where people worked. In these days of the commuter, when people like living in the country or in less crowded places, that argument would extend the conurbation of London to Southampton or Reading and that cannot be right. It is an even less good reason for Wilmslow because, contrary to the satistics which the hon. Member adduced, my statistics are that on the last occasion they were collected about 40 per cent. of the people worked in Wilmslow and 28 per cent. in Manchester.

Mr. Lomas: No.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: What about the 1966 census?

Sir J. Foster: if to that is added the fact that Wilmslow is separated from the conurbation by a small but appreciable green belt we can see that the Government's original mistake was that, as the Cheshire County Council suggested, someone flew over it in a helicopter and saw the green areas which they thought belonged to Alderley Edge.

Mr. Lomas: Never mind the statistics. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with me because I lived in Wilmslow for 24 years and I know a little about the place. The majority of people living in Wilmslow work in Manchester and the only reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants it in Cheshire is because it is a Tory-controlled council. This is concerned with politics. Will the hon.


and learned Gentleman accept that the majority of Wilmslow people have been conned in the poll which took place? I take the Wilmslow Advertiser, which the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously does not read, because if he did read it carefully he too would find that the people have been conned. I wish he would stop quoting statistics and instead deal with the people who live there and who know what they are talking about.

Sir J. Foster: My experience of the law courts is that the fellow who lives in a place is very often wrong. This cannot be helped, because his view is subjective. The last census showed that the percentages of 42 per cent. and 28 per cent.—or perhaps it was 41 per cent. and 28 per cent.—were correct. From calling witnesses in the courts, people who lived in a place, I have noted how they are entirely mistaken about such things as footpaths. A person who lives in a place knows only a certain sample of the other people there, and from that sample he often gets a false impression.
The Cheshire County Council has spent a great deal of capital in setting up the offices of the council in Wilmslow. They include the fire brigade, the North-East Social Services Council, the law courts and one of the planning committees. There is therefore a serious capital commitment. The argument about transport does not bear out the case for having Wilmslow in Manchester because it is on the line ending at Alderley Edge. Whatever applies to Stockport-Wilmslow also applies to Wilmslow-Alderley Edge.
Those who are advocating disagreement with the Lords Amendment must remember that they are asking the House to run counter to practically every single inhabitant of Wilmslow. They must face the fact that the substantial petitions, the delegations and the meetings in Wilmslow show that the vast majority of the people there do not wish to go into Manchester. Whatever the percentage of those who work there, it could be that those who commute to Manchester do not want to live in Manchester just because they work there.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that if any group of 30,000 people wishes to contract

out of reorganisation it should be allowed to do so? That is the logic of what he is saying about Wilmslow.

Sir J. Foster: No. I am saying that where the arguments are fairly finely balanced, where the whole population want to stay in Cheshire they should be allowed to do so. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that I did not represent Wilmslow and I should let those speak who did. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies) represents Wilmslow and he is not able to answer these matters because of the constitutional position. I thought it only right as representing a neighbouring constituency and as one who has a long association with Northwich that I should explain why my right hon. Friend cannot make representations on these lines.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) invited the House to forget that which was said previously. He suggested that we should not lay too much emphasis on constituency. But it is my claim that the people who will be part of the structure of the envisaged greater Manchester metropolitan area are entitled to know from the Minister why the Government have surrendered abjectly and unashamedly in the light of the House of Lords decision on this matter.
That decision was taken by 146 Members of the other place. We speak about the processes of democracy but out of a membership approaching 1,100 less than a mere 10 per cent. voted and the majority of them were in favour of Wilmslow and Poynton being excluded from the envisaged greater Manchester metropolitan area. We are entitled to know on what basis the Government have accepted the substance of their Lordships' argument. I have listened to the previous speakers and their references to consultation. But there are people in the greater Manchester area whom the Minister should consult before he finalises his approach to this important subject.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member has put a rhetorical question to the House as to how the other place reached a decision. Many of those who participated in the debate there were very well acquainted with Cheshire. They included Lord Woolley, the Cheshire farmer, my predecessor Lord Harvey who was the Mem-


ber for Macclesfield, and Lord Leather-land, who had much experience of Cheshire, particularly the North Cheshire area.

Mr. Morris: I do not dispute their close association with Wilmslow and with North-East Cheshire. I wish that they would sometimes demonstrate an equally close interest in the affairs of the greater Manchester metropolitan area, or the envisaged structure now proposed.
There has been emphasis on where the residents of Wilmslow work and hon. Members have referred to the pull of different regional centres, of Macclesfield as opposed to Manchester. But the argument is not wholly about shopping centres, or where people work, or individual interests. At the bottom of the argument is the subject of rates, the envisaged financial burden that the ratepayers of the greater Manchester metropolitan area will he obliged to carry. Wilmslow and Poynton are an integral part of the greater Manchester area, but they are endeavouring to contract out of their financial difficulties. That is the nub of the argument, and I should like some hon. Members opposite to address themselves to it.
I have heard with interest the spokesmen for Poynton and Wilmslow going into historical antiquity to justify the extension of the area. However I remind the House that Lord Redcliffe-Maud said that without Wilmslow the concept of a greater Manchester metropolitan area would be completely illogical. The Minister should explain in detail to the people of the metropolitan area what prompted this last-minute conversion.

Mr. Normanton: It was not a last-minute conversion. This has been the view since the reorganisation of local government was first suggested and consistently and solidly the view of all the electors of Wilmslow.

Mr. Morris: But it is not primarily a matter of the opinion of the residents of Wilmslow or Poynton; it is primarily a matter of the interests of the people of the greater Manchester metropolitan area. At the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool, the Minister met delegations from Wilmslow and the other areas of North-East Cheshire who put their representations on a personal basis. I should have preferred the Minister to have heard

people from the envisaged metropolitan area before changing his mind.
It reminds me of St. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, but changes of mind have been a feature of the Minister's attitude throughout consideration of the Bill. We had the same situation with the "Fiddler on the Roof" and the separation of Bury and Radcliffe from Rochdale. The Minister should have some regard for consistency and for the interests of the people and the structure of the envisaged metropolitan authority, and reject the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Winterton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gathered that at this stage we were to debate only Wilmslow and so the argument for Poynton has not been fully made. At this stage, would I be allowed to discuss the Lords Amendment concerned with Wilmslow and later to support that in respect of Poynton?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): At this stage the hon. Gentleman may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to that point of order. I linked Poynton and Wilmslow in many of the arguments that I adduced.

Mr. Winterton: I rise to support the case for excluding the village of Poynton-with-Worth and I hope that I shall be permitted naturally to support the argument for excluding Wilmslow, too.
I have previously strongly supported the village. I speak for more than 88 per cent. of the village in this matter, not only those who may support me in a future election and who supported me at the by-election, but members of two other parties who did not support me, for the village of Poynton is united in wishing to remain in Cheshire.
I welcome the decision that was reached by a narrow majority in another place, but reached in knowledge of the true situation—that the interests of Poynton lie with Cheshire. I regret to say that on a previous occasion inaccuracies were uttered in this place and they may have prevailed and swung the argument. They were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member


for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), but I will not delay the House by going into too many of them today.
It has been said that the people of Wilmslow wish not to be associated with greater Manchester. I remind the House that Wilmslow has re-housed many thousands of people from greater Manchester, accepting that financial burden to the advantage of the people of Manchester. But many of the people who live on the new estates wish to remain outside Manchester. Macclesfield, too, has undertaken the great financial burden of re-housing many people from the less desirable and the deprived areas of greater Manchester.
It has been said that there is some connection between where people work and where they live. However, as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), people often move away from where they work for good reasons. I do not wish now to go into the pros and cons of those reasons, but we should honour them.
More than 27 per cent. of the people of Poynton work in the greater Manchester area, but that means that 73 per cent. work outside greater Manchester, many of them on the new industrial estates, one of which is now springing up in Poynton itself, while another has been established at Macclesfield. People from the village have much to do with Macclesfield.
As the Member for the area, I spent a great deal of time in the Recess meeting not only the action committee, which has conducted a wonderful campaign, highlighting the desire to remain in Cheshire, but many of the amazing number of people who shop in Macclesfield, which is a developing shopping centre. People who in the past may have looked to greater Manchester or Stockport, or even Manchester itself, do not now do so. They look towards Macclesfield for shopping centres, and for industry they look to Macclesfield, Poynton and Woodford. Ultimately Woodford may be included in the greater Manchester area, but many people now look to those areas which do not at present lie within the greater Manchester area.
6.0 p.m.
I am surprised at some of the comments that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Often we hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) rightly making pleas on behalf of people. Local government is about people. Surely, they should be allowed some say in what is to happen in local government.
Six months ago the people of Poynton presented a petition to the Secretary of State, a copy of which was sent to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I think 86 per cent. of the people indicated clearly that they wanted to remain in the county of Cheshire. When this matter was argued at an earlier stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North said that support for "Poynton for Cheshire" was dwindling and, because of the setback they had suffered, it would probably peter out. I should advise the hon. Member for Wythenshawe that six months after the first petition was organised, a second petition to his Royal Highness Prince Charles the Earl of Chester was organised by the "Poynton for Cheshire" campaign committee with the same purpose in view—that the village should remain in Cheshire. On this occasion over 88 per cent. of the people clearly indicated what they wanted. This was after all the emotion had died down. I should be a very stupid man--and I think this House would be acting in a very undemocratic way—if such an overwhelming expression of opinion was ignored.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's view. However, does he agree that all the evidence he is advancing was available to his noble Friend last week, in the other place when he rejected out of hand the case for Poynton to remain in Cheshire?

Mr. Winterton: Yes. As has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir J. Foster), it is easy to go back into volumes of HANSARD of both this House and the other place and quote what a Minister has said.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that when he advanced these arguments and made broadly the speech that he is making


tonight, his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development rejected every point he advanced on that occasion?

Mr. Winterton: I can also agree with that. Perhaps wisdom has at last prevailed. It may be that in this instance my right hon. Friend has come to believe that democracy in local government means something and that, particularly concerning Poynton, it would be an abuse of democracy if the overwhelming opinion which has been expressed were ignored.
The village feels very strongly about this matter. I do not want to re-emphasise too much, but this is right across the parties. It refers to those not only within the Conservative and Liberal ranks but right across the party structure. This is a clear indication that the village is interested in itself.
On a previous occasion I referred to the tremendous community spirit in this village. It does a great deal for itself. I believe that this House should honour it and allow Poynton to remain in Cheshire.
I want to go back to Wilmslow because one or two unkind things have been said about it—for example, that it is trying to avoid its responsibility; that the people of the Greater Manchester area could do with the rateable value that Wilmslow would bring to them.
I remind the House that Macclesfield, particularly the Borough of Macclesfield, suffered greatly in the industrial revolution and thereafter. At Question Time today I drew attention to the massive contraction of the textile industry. This has created great problems for Macclesfield. There are many eyesores, which I hope will benefit from the Government's "Operation Eyesore", which need to be put right so that the area can offer amenity to all the people. This can be helped substantially by the addition of Wilmslow. Basically, Macclesfield is surrounded by a rural area, and the rateable value is not very high. It would be a great asset to have the additional rateable value of Wilmslow in the new district to help the deprived areas of Macclesfield. It may be a Conservative seat, but many areas need a great deal doing to them, and I believe that Wilmslow can add a great deal.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Equally, the urban dereliction, which is such a feature of life in Manchester, would be helped by the rateable value represented by Wilmslow if it were to go in the greater Manchester metropolitan area.

Mr. Winterton: It would not be right for me to argue about an area which I do not know very well. I respect the opinions expressed by the hon. Gentleman, who knows his area very well. No doubt he respects my opinions about Macclesfield, which I know a little better than he does.
I must come back to the argument about Poynton and local democracy. This village has expressed itself twice in very fine terms. It is united in its objective of remaining in Cheshire. All the local authorities involved are unanimous in their wish that this area should remain in Cheshire.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) said that the Cheshire County Council is a reactionary Tory county council, and he brought in the matter of education. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Poynton possesses a brand new comprehensive school provided by that reactionary Tory county council.

Mr. Lomas: Poynton has a very strong Labour Party which has helped tremendously towards that objective. I wish the hon. Gentleman would not spoil his case. If he will argue that Poynton should remain in Cheshire, I assure him that, whatever the Whips may say, I shall be in his Lobby tonight. If he will not stop involving Wilmslow in it, which I believe is an integral part of Manchester, I will be in the other Lobby. The hon. Gentleman must try to make up his mind what he is talking about. If he will concentrate on his constituency, which I know as well as he does, and talk about Poynton and forget Wilmslow, we might reach some amicable agreemdent on which way we should vote.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For the rest of my address to the House I will confine myself to Poynton, if only to get the hon. Gentleman's support.
All the local authorities in Cheshire—the Cheshire County Council, the Macclesfield Rural District Council and the


Poynton Parish Council—are unanimous in their wish that this area should remain in Cheshire. The people of Poynton are concerned about their village. The depth of feeling in the action group and the support which it has been given in organising this campaign for the village to stay in Cheshire is outstanding. I pay tribute to the efforts that have been put into this campaign.
The two petitions which have been organised, the massive lobbying, letters, and correspondence which have been generated have all been done voluntarily by the people of Poynton. Not one penny of public money has gone into this particular campaign. No council has allocated funds for the village to remain in Cheshire. The campaign has the support of all the local councils, but the campaign itself has been fought and contested by the local people. I believe this House should recognise their objective and honour the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I shall be brief because I think the Government have given all the answers to the supporters of the Lords Amendment—if not to the Lords in 1200 when the Charter for Poynton was supposed to have been granted.
Last week in the House of Lords and here the Government have been asking their supporters to stand on their heads, and presumably they will dutifully do so. I can understand the Minister's dilemma. He wants the Bill this week and he wants to get rid of it. For that I do not blame him, because he has had it a long time. We are asked to support these Lords Amendments not because they make for a proper reorganisation of local government in Manchester or Cheshire but because the Government want the Bill this week and they made a mistake in the House of Lords.

Mr. Graham Page: If the Government made a mistake in the House of Lords they seem to have been in good company. Looking down the list of the names of those who said "Content", we see Addison, Beswick, Blyton, Davies of Leek, Gaitskell, Gardiner, Maybray-King, Moyle, Royle, Serota, Strabolgi, and Summerskill.

Mr. Marks: Anything can happen in the other place.
I live in a district within the Greater Manchester area. It is not in the City of Manchester but will be part of the district within the new Greater Manchester. I remember the discussion which various councils in the area had when the 1957 White Paper was published. All the councils were unanimous that they wanted to stay exactly as they were unless they could take in the nearest smaller local authority. Poynton is one of those at the end of the line.
Like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I live in an area like Poynton, which has a great community spirit. It has a community association, active churches, garden societies, and all the other things. It does not have a council but that does not stop it from being a community and a good one at that. We ought to emphasise, when Poynton is being asked to go into Manchester, to form part of the district within greater Manchester, that it is more logical that it should be in greater Manchester than governed from Chester.
Wilmslow is, if anything, even more closely involved with the city and greater Manchester. A body of men and women live in Wilmslow although they work within Manchester and have influence there because of their interest in business or education or other spheres of activity. Indeed, 15 of the city magistrates live in Wilmslow. I wonder how many of the Chester magistrates live in Wilmslow.
I had a letter from a Poynton resident this morning and it says:
I have been to Manchester twice in eight years. We drove round for half an hour trying to find a parking spot and then promptly came back home.
I must say quite frankly—if I may use the expression—that she is rather a rare bird if she has been to Manchester only twice in eight years.
However, I understand how the residents of Poynton feel about the green belt and open spaces. They are worried about that, but I believe that a greater danger to the green belt and open spaces around Poynton comes not from the form of local government reorganisation but from speculative builders and from the Government in their drive for more spaces for houses. Greater Manchester and the city are as keenly interested in good town and


country planning as are any other authorities.
The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) talked about capital expenditure by Cheshire in this area. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I should think that the loan charges on public buildings in this area ought to be taken over by the new authorities for the area and not kept by Cheshire County Council. In any case, Wilmslow would become an administrative centre for north-east Cheshire while the rest of north-east Cheshire, Stalybridge and Hyde and so on, have nothing to do with Manchester.
There are many residents who want to move out from the central area of Manchester but receive their profits and their pay and their rents from the city area and do not wish to pay the rates for running a complicated area like greater Manchester. This is what I would call unenlightened self-interest. One word which ought to be used in this connection is "snobbery". It is time we heard the last of that word.
I urge the Government to think again and reject this Lords Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: As one whose first constituency was the Borough of Eccles, may I join with what an hon. Member opposite and others have said about the late Jack McCann. I watched him for many years as a councillor for Eccles and I witnessed his becoming its mayor. Ultimately he came to this House to represent Rochdale. I join with them in saying how much we regret his going.
I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) in opposing what has been proposed by another place, as I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Members for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) and Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). We are at one in sustaining this great new conception of a Greater Manchester, a great metropolitan area. It seems that the Government have fallen away from their plans for their ultimate objective of making a great success of the higher levels of local government in these great concentrated areas.
This is not in any way to leave unacknowledged what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said or to leave unacknowledged the feelings in villages like Withington, which is fighting hard against destruction of such a darling community as Ladybarn and complete rebuilding. Withington village is threatened because of works to prevent traffic inconvenience. I agree with my hon. Friend and others about the small local communities, but I think we have sometimes to look at higher considerations such as the one which is the main objective of the Government. I think the Government accept in good part the point which is being made but are rather frightened to mount their own horses on this occasion.
I have read the debates in another place and even the claims about the existing frontiers of Manchester sufficing for a great metropolitan area, but they would make it quite impossible, judged by rateable values alone, and the proposition here is not acceptable. I know the area as well, perhaps, as any Member of the House, including those like the hon. Gentleman opposite who is frequently on his feet claiming that he lived in Wilmslow for 24 years. It has been said that people of great experience in business and other activities live in Wilmslow and are not prepared to live in a great conurbation and a great metropolitan area such as that of Greater Manchester. I hope that that will be the outcome of our proceedings today vis-à-vis Wilmslow. I know these communities. One never leaves Withington. One leaves Withington and arrives at Altrincham, Bowdon and Wilmslow. Those places are one enormous community which I would like to see threaded together so that they are balanced and so that a better economy can be achieved. Let us consider the authority with which I have a great concern, SELNEC, the great transport authority. Do not let us leave a fragmented quilt.
A great mistake was made by moving Alderley Edge away from its twin, Wilmslow. I was told at breakfast this morning by my darling wife that somebody flew over the area in an aeroplane and decided where the line should be drawn on two green fields. That is silly. However, it does not divert me from the main objective which the Government


have in mind. Let us have a great metropolitan area. It is not a matter of moving Amendments in another place to take away certain places—I should like to move a few Amendments to bring in a few places.
If one wants to make a success of a great city or a success of one's life, the basis upon which one does so must be the wealth which one can sustain in following that great ambition. Apropos of that, there is a famous story about the Manchester Corporation providing £5 million to complete the Manchester Ship Canal. The House would not provide the money, but the Corporation did so because it trebled the rateable values of the City of Manchester. These are not matters which can be thrown about in ordinary debate, point counterpoint and debate. These are deeply reflected matters by which events are managed.
I want to see the Manchester conurbation, greater Manchester, given the greatest possible chance to succeed. One of the tragedies of our cities, not only Manchester but some elsewhere, is that all to often they have been used as areas of extraction. Wilmslow has often faced extraction from Manchester, not only its people but the money which they make in the city. A splendid business like Finnegans has left Deansgate a wilderness. The building is still unoccupied. It is now a great, thriving business in Wilmslow. Next will be Kendal Milne's, We shall become a total wilderness. The case for resisting the Lords Amendment has been made and I fully support the speech made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe.

Mr. Oakes: Although I am a North-Western Member from the Opposition Front Bench, I do not want to deal with many of the excellent arguments which have been adduced from both sides about shopping areas, go-to-work areas, rates and various other local problems. Such arguments have been well expressed not only by hon. Members who represent neighbouring constituencies, but, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), by a Member who for 24 years lived in Wilmslow. It is the opinion of all hon. Members, other than the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is so interested in the matter as it comes within

his constituency, but including the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), that it is wrong that the House should agree and concur with the Lords in what they have done in the last stages of the Bill.
I shall follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington because he expressed the view of the Government and the view of the Opposition. The Government in their wisdom decided that they would set up great conurbation areas. The Opposition, although they differed from the Government on a number of matters, broadly supported the Government in the concept of a great, sufficiently rich metropolitan area in a given place. Why else were there not Amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said, to taken Wigan from Manchester—proud Wigan, an ancient town as old as Manchester, a Roman foundation? Speaking for Bolton, which I represented for eight years, I think that if there were a poll in Bolton there would be a substantial poll against going into greater Manchester. If there were a poll in Southport, which is in the Merseyside conurbation, whether Southport should join the Merseyside conurbation and not be a part of Lancashire, I think that Southport would choose to remain part of Lancashire.
The Opposition supported the concept of a big and sufficiently resourceful area. I give the Government great credit because throughout the Bill they have been prepared to look at issues and reconsider them. We have not agreed on everything but on many issues there has been agreement between the two sides of the Committee or the House, and when representations have been made by individual back benchers there has also been agreement. That was so when I moved Amendments relating to my constituency, and many other hon. Members can say the same. However, we are now dealing with an entirely different matter.
We persuaded the Government to change their minds and the Government did so either in Committee or between Committee and Report after intensive negotiations between hon. Members concerned, deputations and debates. The Government changed their position and gave reasons for doing so. The only reason that the Government are in the embarrassing position that they are in this


evening—that of agreeing with the Lords Amendment—is that they were beaten in the Lords.
In the 12 months since the Bill came before the House, there have been representations by the hon. Member for Macclesfield and other hon. Members and by the local authorities regarding Wilmslow, Bowdon and Bramhall. The Government always replied consistently that although these representations might represent local wishes and feeling, they would interfere with the concept of the greater Manchester and therefore could not be allowed. The Government were consistent not only in Committee but also on Report. We know from the debate in another place that only a week before the Amendment was carried in the Lords the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from Wilmslow and the Government correctly held fast to the view, which had been expressed in Committee and in the House, that it was essential that Wilmslow should remain in the greater Manchester area. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Local Government and Development held that view right to the last moment.
6.30 p.m.
In the House of Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, right to the last moment urged his fellow peers to support the Government on the same principle which the right hon. Gentleman had urged this House to follow. The Opposition are asking the Government to disagree with this Lords Amendment for the same reason which the Government themselves advanced consistently until 16th October—that Wilmslow properly belongs to the greater Manchester area and that it is a nonsense to the whole of that area to suggest that Wilmslow can be divided from it and put in the county of Cheshire.
It was not only Lord Sandford who stressed this point over and over again in another place. An independent view was expressed by possibly the greatest expert on local government reorganisation in this country, speaking from the cross-benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has already quoted a passage from Lord Redcliffe-Maud and I want to quote what Lord Redcliffe-Maud said about this Amendment. He said:
That the Government have set their face against, because it would be inconsistent with

the principle upon which they have been drawing Metropolitan Areas, and no one in their senses would ask them to change their mind at this stage. But I suggest that it would he ludicrous to exclude Wilmslow and continue with the concept of Greater Manchester.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 16th October, 1972; Vol. 335, c. 1586.]
That was the view expressed by the noble Lord who was responsible for the massive Redcliffe-Maud Report. He gave his opinion on various Amendments before the House of Lords during the proceedings of the Bill there. Thus, in addition to the consistent view of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Local Government and Development, and of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, we have this independent voice in the House of Lords stating that it would be a nonsense to continue with the concept of greater Manchester if this Amendment were acceded to.
We know that the Minister has no faith in what the other place has done—I accept that. I have had experience of him on this Bill both in Committee and in the House and know that when he has made up his mind on a position and thinks that he is right he is prepared to fight it out, no matter what the opposition. He has told us today that he has not completely withdrawn from his view that greater Manchester should include Wilmslow.
What, therefore, have we as the House of Commons got? I put this point to hon. Members opposite as well as to my hon. Friends. We have had a consistent view by the Government from the very beginning. But now, because of a defeat in another place, the Government are being put in the ludicrously embarrassing position of having to stand on their heads on the issue. Why are they having to stand on their heads? Why are they having to go back on all the words they expressed previously? Is it not because the House of Lords has effected a change of mind on the part of the Government. It is because the Government dare not disagree with the Lords Amendment because they have allowed a parliamentary situation to develop whereby we are in the last hours of the Session, so that the whole of the local government of the country is to be affected by what a few unelected Members of another place may decide and the Government have not the courage to ask the House of Commons to disagree.

Mr. Graham Page: The Division list in another place in support of the Amendment consisted mostly of Members of the Labour Party. It is not the Government who are standing on their heads, but the Opposition.

Mr. Oakes: I do not accept that. My noble Friends in another place very often have a mind of their own—not only on this matter but on such issues as the Common Market—and if we were to rely on being consistent with what they say, we would have a sorry business in this House.
Even at this late stage, I ask the Government and hon. Members opposite to have courage and say, "We will have the courage to stand by our convictions in the concept of local government which we have followed from the start, and we believe that Wilmslow should be part of greater Manchester. We will put it back where it belongs—in greater Manchester." I hope that both my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will, on ground of consistency in local government, have the courage to go into the Lobby and disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Lomas: I agree entirely that Wilmslow should go into the greater Manchester area, but what is the position taken up by the Opposition Front Bench about Poynton? Is there not a case for Poynton remaining in Cheshire?

Mr. Oakes: I accept that I have dealt only with Lords Amendment No. 8, dealing with Wilmslow, from the Front Bench point of view. The Opposition have no view one way or another about Poynton. We are not dealing there with a very large area, which is not the case with Wilmslow. Wilmslow is a very large area; with Poynton, one is dealing with a village. One can say that Poynton has in many ways closer links with Cheshire than with Manchester. But this is not a major issue. Wilmslow, however, does raise a major point. I asked earlier in the debate for separate Divisions so that hon. Members could exercise their votes in different ways, if they wished, on Wilmslow and Poyton. The majority in another place for the Poynton Amendment was only one. There is no official Opposition Front Bench view about

Poynton, but I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Lords Amendment dealing with Wilmslow.

Mr. Idris Owen: I rise to support the contentions which were implicit in the Bill and which were unequivocally supported by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development. Throughout all our debates on the Bill, from Second Reading to Third Reading, no powerful representations were made on the Floor of this House, to my recollection, about the case of Wilmslow. On the other hand, the representations by Poynton were extremely consistent and determined. From the beginning, Poynton was determined to fight for its retention in Cheshire County Council. Not so Wilmslow. Wilmslow has come up fast towards the finishing post and has made its representations known by what may have been a massive lobby.
This local government reorganisation is possibly the most important reform in local government this century. Probably it is the last major local government reform we shall have this century. It is, therefore, a little unfortunate that we should he stampeded, as we are being tonight, into taking a decision which will affect the lives of people in the North-West for decades.
I believe we are being asked to support Lords Amendment No. 8 not from principle but from expediency. That is unworthy in view of the many hours devoted to debating the merits and demerits of the case. I have received a letter from a Cheshire county councillor, a very prominent gentleman, who unequivocally supports the view that Wilmslow should be part of the greater Manchester area. He states that every district in the Stockport area—including Cheadle and Gatley, Hazel Grove and Bramhall and others—equally did not wish to join the greater Manchester metropolitan county area but in their wisdom had decided that if we were to have viable local government reform they had no real justification for resisting the change, particularly in the light of the criteria in the White Paper, which points out:
If local authorities are to provide services effectively and economically, their areas should be large enough in size, population and


resources to meet administrative needs, including the maintenance and development of a trained and expert local government service; boundaries should be drawn so that areas take account of patterns of development and travel; and services which are closely linked should be in the hands of the same authority.
If it ever applied to any area it applies to Wilmslow vis-à-vis Manchester.
I cannot understand why we should change our views. There is no doubt that the real reason is that the Government have been pressurised. Cheadle and Gatley were linked with Wilmslow very closely. It has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) that Wilmslow and Stockport have no community of interest, but Stockport is part of a metropolitan county district comprising Cheadle and Gatley, and the village of Cheadle Hulme, in Cheadle and Gatley, shares a common boundary with Wilmslow.
How can Wilmslow suggest that it has no community interest with Manchester when Manchester Airport is almost in Wilmslow itself, and the whole of Ring-way and Wythenshawe continues on to Wilmslow? If one looks at the map of the proposed metropolitan county one finds that Wilmslow is between nine and 10 miles south of the Manchester city centre, but going up north we have Rams-bottom, Wardle, Littleborough and Turton, north of Bolton. If Wilmslow has no community of interest with Manchester, nine miles away, what community of interest has Turton got?
We have been discussing this from a rather selfish and narrow view, but for the benefit of the region we should have considered the whole region. There is a certain amount of resistance on this side, and certainly in Wilmslow, when we discuss Manchester, because Manchester has always been regarded as "Big Brother". If we could have had some name other than Greater Manchester there might have been far fewer protestations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Man, chester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) excited me when he discussed the great adventure of the Ship Canal, and Manchester has also spent a very great deal of money on one of the greatest airports in Europe. It has made a great economic contribution to the region. Wilmslow is extricably in that region and it is only from sheer selfishness that it wishes to opt out. There

is no economic reason, no local government administrative reason, why it should stay out. It is purely that it does not wish to be associated with the Greater Manchester area.
What is so distressing in this is that very many industrialists and business and professional men who serve the needs of Manchester but who live in Wilmslow want to opt out of any further responsibility after half-past five in the evening. This is distressing, because one cannot have these very able people not being interested in the wellbeing of the region as a whole. It is just not enough for such a man to say: "I go to Manchester, I work in Manchester, I serve Manchester people, but after that I have no interest in the social, the cultural or the economic wellbeing of the City. That is for someone else to take care of, not for me, thank you." It is a very unreasonable attitude to take.
When one looks at the effect of the proposed county district one sees that Wilmslow is naturally in the region. We look at Saddleworth, at Leigh, at Westhoughton and we look at Wilmslow. The proximity of Wilmslow to Manchester is undeniable. If one cares to travel along the road from Wilmslow to Manchester between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. one finds that the traffic is massive. It moves in a northerly direction from Wilmslow, commuting into the great city. To say that Wilmslow has no community of interest with Manchester is rather like saying that some of the areas south of London, such as Croydon, have no community of interest whatsoever with London. The suggestion is just not acceptable. I would not have minded had the case been advanced on principle, but I believe that it has been advanced purely for selfish reasons. There is nothing detrimental to the interests of Wilmslow in acceptance of being a part of the big North-West region—nothing to deter its supporting this proposal.
6.45 p.m.
I have very great respect for the Minister because he is a man of deep conviction, and I know that his heart is not in this Amendment. I know that he is, generally speaking, being put into an extremely difficult position. How many commissions have we had? Every local government commission over the last 20 years has put this area in the GMC conurbation. Every commission which has


made a study in depth of local government reorganisation in the North-West region has unhesitatingly recommended that Wilmslow be part of the metropolitan area, and has included Alderley Edge.
It has been said that the areas have been too tightly drawn. My memory goes back a few years to the time when the Redcliffe-Maud Commission recommended some rather dramatic changes which would have virtually wiped out the county of Cheshire. That county was naturally very deeply distressed and disturbed, and no doubt representations were made here on its behalf. When my right hon. Friend decided not to accept the Redcliffe-Maud recommendation and came up with a more reasonable proposal, the Cheshire County Council breathed a great sigh of relief and was extremely grateful to him. This recommendation envisaged Alderley Edge and Wilmslow being part of the economic county area.
As a result of pressure—I am almost inclined to say as a result of wheeling and dealing—Alderley Edge was excluded. Disley was excluded, and went into the area of the Derbyshire County Council. There was a certain unanimity among the powers-that-be in Cheshire that that should be so. But it was after the Measure had gone through the whole democratic procedure in this Chamber and had found its way to the other place that the lobbyists got busy, and the arm twisting started against the principles enshrined in the White Paper.
It is the White Paper that motivated my right hon. Friend to propose that this area be the greater Manchester metropolitan area, and nothing has been said in the other place to change my view on that. I feel sure that the people who recommended these proposals to the Government have not been convinced either, but unfortunately, pressures being what they are and the time being what it is, we are now being expected to reject what was basic to the White Paper proposals. I am sorry about this, and I will not support the Lords Amendment. I shall vote against it.
Although I have in the past suggested that Poynton should be included, I will follow the lead of hon. Members opposite. If I can retain Wilmslow in the Man-

chester area, I shall not raise any opposite views on Poynton because I know, having lived there, that there have been social relationships with Macclesfield which are greater than Wilmslow ever had. It would surprise me if Wilmslow and Macclesfield ever sat in the same council chamber in the future. I can well imagine that Wilmslow would want to sit in a council chamber with Knutsford. I can imagine, and I have heard it on the bush telegraph, that it would like to be associated with a new county council based on Wilmslow or Knutsford. I have never noticed any real community interest between Wilmslow and Macclesfield. One would be very lucky to get a bus from Wilmslow to Macclesfield, and one cannot travel between the two by train. One can go only by car.
There is a distinct difference between Poynton, which is on a direct commuter line to Macclesfield, and Wilmslow. How can the latter claim any community of interest with the North-West area, located as it is, when Hale, Bowden, Ringway and Altrincham have to accept that they are associated with the greater Manchester area?
If the Hale people had held a referendum, 99 per cent. would have opted to stay in Cheshire. The same applies to the Cheadle people and the Bramhall people. They do not wish to be associated with Manchester. It is a little unfair that these authorities should have had no opportunity to express their views by a referendum.
If the referendum is the main reason for agreeing to the Lords Amendment, a new dimension is added to our deliberations. One can support referenda on Northern Ireland, the Common Market and many other subjects. But we have decided steadfastly against them. We have concluded that, in the interests of the people as a whole, a certain line of action should be taken and we have defended that action.
If referenda were the criteria, no area south of Manchester, including my own town, would vote to go into Manchester. I can imagine that this would apply up into the North in Turton and Wardle and the other areas. They have never had the opportunity of a referendum. They have never been encouraged to believe that, if 99 per cent. of their people voted


against going into Manchester, that would be the end of it.
This makes a mockery of local government recommendations. My right hon. Friend cannot with conviction advise us to agree to this Amendment.

Mr. Normanton: The House is the poorer because my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies), whose constituency includes the urban district council of Wilmslow is, for reasons well known to the House, unable to answer the caustic criticisms made tonight of that part of his constituency. It has been said that one or two hon. Gentlemen live in this area. May I disclose an interest by saying that I do, too? I have been there, perhaps, not for 24 years, but at least for 21. That is the only ground upon which I will do what I can, as briefly as possible, to project the views in support of the Lords Amendment.
Views which are mainly emotional have been voiced—from both sides of the House, I regret to say—about whether Wilmslow should or should not be in the greater Manchester area. Motives have been attributed which are good, bad or—predominantly—indifferent. But I take note of the views of the late Jack McCann about the wishes of the people. Jack McCann was a man I knew very well within the House and without. One thing that he fought for above all else within the framework of party loyalties was the rights of the people and the need to recognise the deep, passionate and sincere views of people. I challenge any hon. Member to deny that.
Were he here today, I believe that Jack McCann would have taken the fullest possible cognisance of what the people of Wilmslow have said consistently and with great sincerity and force.
In another place, Lord Leatherland said:
…there are two matters I think we have to consider when dealing with these matters of local government reorganisation. One is geography and the other is people, and I feel that in this case the people have been overruled and even geography has had to be stretched."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 16th October, 1972, c. 1597–8.]
The Lords, many of them in the party opposite, took note of the views of the people and rejected the original decision in the Bill.
If this House rejects these passionately held views, it does so at its peril. I know that one or two hon. Gentlemen believe that there should be referenda on all major issues. I do not share that view and I will not try to argue the case for this in broad parliamentary terms on national or international issues. But I will argue the merits of the referendum on local issues.
Local people are responsible and, I passionately hope, will always be responsible for governing their own communities with the absolute minimum of dictation and influence from this House. If they, through their normal constitutional local governmental channels, have gone to the trouble to consult their electorate—not in a highly emotional and supercilious way, but deeply and continuously—this House will be ill advised to ignore the views of those people.

Mr. Marks: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if any village, urban district or borough in the greater Manchester area decided that it would rather be governed from Preston or Chester, its wish should be granted? What kind of county government should we get then?

Mr. Normanton: I do not say that this should be the sole criterion by which decisions should be taken, but I repeat that, if we fail to give reasonable weight to the opinions of the people, we do so at our peril.
Highly emotional criteria can be injected at all levels, particularly in tightly-knit communities. This is not a matter purely of emotion or of selfish interest which has activated 30,000 residents of the Wilmslow Urban District Council to express and consistently to press the views enshrined in the Amendment.

Mr. Lomas: To start with, where does the hon. Gentleman get the figure of 30,000? That is more than the total population of the Wilmslow urban district. Would he agree that no one on either side appreciates more than I the great work that Jack McCann did in this House? He was a tremendous Member of Parliament, appreciated by both sides. But Jack McCann would have said that it is the long-term view that matters. He would of course note what people said, but he would have acted—as I believe the hon. Member himself would do—in the


interests of the people as a whole and not just of a particular section.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Normanton: I take note of that point and would not challenge it, in the sense that the late Jack McCann would have taken note of issues in addition to local views and anxieties. If we were to be moved solely and exclusively by local issues, and if that were the sole criterion, this would be a bad decision.

Mr. Lomas: Where does the 30,000 figure come from?

Mr. Normanton: The figure of 30,000 is the population in round figures of the Wilmslow urban district, and it is growing at a phenomenal rate. Those 30,000 people have expressed their views, as have the people who have become residents of Wilmslow urban district, and particularly people in the Handforth area. Indeed some 93 per cent. of households in the district have expressed their views forcibly and effectively in terms of the debates in the other place. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) will be prepared to accept this, not as a matter of opinion, but as a fact.

Mr. Lomas: No.

Mr. Normanton: I could go through the whole case in detail on behalf of the citizens of Wilmslow urban district council, but suffice it to say that any hon. Member who was sufficiently interested will have read the document which was sent to every single Member of Parliament. If hon. Members have not read that document, it shows their cavalier attitude to an expression of public opinion. It displays a disregard for those views in an attempt to rise roughshod over the local population for what I can only described as devious and doubtful reasons.
The case for this Amendment has been spelt out in the other place where the intrinsic merits were discussed. It would be a mockery and an abdication of regard for the feelings of the people if this House were to reverse that decision and to fly violently in the face of the public of Wilmslow.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), inter-

vene in this debate briefly not because I represent a constituency in this area but because I have lived all my life until the last election at a point directly between Wilmslow and Poynton. I hope that the House will accept Lords Amendment No. 9 which will exclude the village of Poynton-with-Worth from Manchester metropolitan county. I do not want tonight to argue one way or the other about the position of Wilmslow.
Most of the arguments on these Amendments have been on the assumption that the reform of local government would be based on the city-region concept but this is not what the Government's proposals are about. I should add that on Report I spoke in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) when he sought to exclude Poynton from the metropolitan county. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the energy he has displayed on this matter. There is a fundamental difference in respect of this village and I believe that an exception should be made in terms of Poynton.
The fundamental difference is twofold. I speak as a planner and I believe that it is vital to preserve the albeit tenuous stretch of green belt which exists between Hazel Grove and Poynton. It can be argued that the consequence on the green belt is nothing to do with the shape of local government. In other words, if Poynton were in the metropolitan county, it would not necessarily mean that the green belt would go, but there is a much stronger chance of that green belt being saved if Poynton remains in Cheshire county. Geographically one can argue that Poynton should remain in Cheshire. On political grounds in the broadest sense it is a peculiar proposition that Poynton should become part of the Manchester metropolitan county. It would have been the only part of the Macclesfield rural district that would have been taken into the Manchester area. Therefore, I believe that we should make an exception in this respect. Incidentally, I well recall the rural ride of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) in the Macclesfield constituency in 1955 and his quick ride out after the result of the election.

Mr. Lomas: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that after I fought Blackpool, South in 1951 they made my opponent a knight six months later, that


when I fought Macclesfield in 1955 they made my opponent a knight in three months, and then in Huddersfield, West when I beat the sitting Member they made him a peer within one month.

Mr. Chapman: In talking about Poynton one is talking about 0·3 per cent. of the new Manchester metropolitan county; and Poynton contains about 3 per cent. of the total population of the new district centred upon Stockport.
I am not saying that whatever the people in an area think the Government should accept, but that if the arguments are finely balanced, then they should. It is said that the arguments about Poynton are finely balanced for and against, but I must point out that 90 per cent. of the electorate of that village want to remain part of Cheshire county. Therefore, I believe that the Government are wise, whatever their original views on this topic, to accept the Lords Amendment, an Amendment which was supported on both sides in the House of Lords.

Mr. Normanton: My hon. Friend has made these observations about Poynton from his experience and qualifications as a planner. Would he care to say whether by allowing Poynton to remain in Cheshire and by bringing Wilmslow into Manchester, this would not make

planning nonsense of the worst possible order?

Mr. Chapman: I am doubtful about planners who think they can judge everything by drawing a line on the map. I take my hon. Friend's point. If Poynton remained in Cheshire, then geographically it adds to his case for Wilmslow's staying in Cheshire. I shall support the Government in the Lobby in their wish to keep Wilmslow in Cheshire. But I am not speaking specifically to the argument about Wilmslow. I am confining myself to the argument about Poynton.
The arguments are finely balanced. Consequently, I believe that the balance should come down in favour of the overwhelming desire of the local residents. It is unfair to say that my right hon. Friend has stood on head the arguments that he used. He has admitted that he seeks to agree with the Lords Amendment with reservations. It is a tribute to my right hon. Friend that, balancing the arguments, he has decided to take cognisance of the overwhelming wishes of the local residents. That is true local government and true democracy at work.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 151.

Division No. 344.]
AYES
[7.12 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis A. G. F.


Atkins, Humphrey
Crouch, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Hawkins, Paul


Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord
Dean, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Benyon, W.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hiley, J.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Biffen, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hooson, Emlyn


Blaker, Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Hordern, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Farr, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hunt, John


Bray, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brewis, John
Fortescue, Tim
Iremonger, T. L.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Norman
James, David


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gardner, Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhew, Victor
Kinsey, J. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gorst, John
Kirk, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Raymond
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Knox, David


Clegg, Walter
Gray, Hamish
Lane, David


Cockeram, Eric
Green, Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cooke, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Coombs, Derek
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cordle, John
Grylls, Michael
Longden, Sir Gilbert




Loveridge, John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Soref, Harold


Luce, R. N.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Speed, Keith


MacArthur, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil
Spence, John


McCrindle, R. A.
Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLaren, Martin
Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stokes, John


Maddan, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Madel, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Mawby, Ray
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trew, Peter


Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Moate, Roger
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Money, Ernie
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ridsdale, Julian
Ward, Dame Irene


Monro, Hector
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Winterton, Nicholas


Murton, Oscar
Scott, Nicholas



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Normanton, Tom
Simeons, Charles
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Michael Jopling.


Osborn, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Albu, Austen
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G.


Allen, Scholefield
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prescott, John


Atkinson, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Probert, Arthur


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Beaney, Alan
John, Brynmor
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn Anthony Wedgwood
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bishop, E. S.
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Latham, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Leonard, Dick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sillars, James


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Cohen, Stanley
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Concannon, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Terry (Brom[...]grove)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Doig, peter
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eadie, Alex
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Edeiman, Maurice
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Torney, Tom


Ellis, Tom
Mendelson, John
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Foot, Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Ford, Ben
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forrester, John
Moyle, Roland
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Gilbert, Dr. John
Oakes, Gordon
Whitlock, William


Golding, John
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oram, Bert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)



Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Paget, R. T.



Hardy, Peter
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pardoe, John
Mr. Michael Hamilton and


Hattersley, Roy
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 209, line 39, leave out "and Wilmslow".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 150.

Division No. 345.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Grylls, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Awdry, Daniel
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John


Benyon, W.
Hall-Davis A. G. F.
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pardoe, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil


Blaker, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bowden, Andrew
Hooson, Emlyn
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bray, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brewis, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmond, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
James, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cockeram, Eric
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas


Coombs, Derek
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cordle, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Simeons, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Soref, Harold


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul
Le Merchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, R. N.
Stokes, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Madel, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Trew, Peter


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fowler, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gardner, Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Gorst, John
Money, Ernie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Gower, Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monro, Hector
Mr. Michael Jopling.


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus





NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.


Albu, Austen
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edelman, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield
Cary, Sir Robert
Edwards, Robert (B[...]lston)


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ellis, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Churchill, W. S.
Evans, Fred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Faulds, Andrew


Beaney, Alan
Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ford, Ben


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthu[...]
Forrester, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Dolg, Peter
Goldlng, John




Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mayhew, Christopher
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hannan, William (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sillars, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silverman, Julius


Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skinner, Dennis


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Swain, Thomas


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oram, Bert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


John, Brynmor
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Torney, Tom


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Paget, R. T.
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kerr, Russell
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Kinnock, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.
Wellbeloved, James


Latham, Arthur
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lawson George
Prescott, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Leonard Dick
Probert, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Lever Rt Hn Harold
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lomas Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McCartney Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)



McNamara, J. Kevin
Rose, Paul B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oakes: On a point of order. We have had a long debate on Wilmslow, in which not only many Opposition Members but many Conservative Members spoke against the Government. Yet at the end of the debate there was no windup speech from the Government Front Bench. Was it embarrassment, or was it because the Government agreed with the Opposition, as they have done consistently? May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether all debates will be conducted in this way, with no reply to the points raised by hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): That is not a point of order; that is a matter for the Government.

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 210, line 30, column 2, leave out "Windle, Eccleston, Rainhill and" and insert
Eccleston, Rainhill and Windle, and the parish of".

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It is purely a drafting Amendment to tidy up an Opposition Amendment which the Government accepted on Report in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 211, line 17, column 2, after "ward" insert
so much of the East Ward as lies east and north of Ordnance Survey parcels 4800, 4749, 5136 and 8630".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes a minor adjustment to the boundary between South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire at Bawtry on the Old Great North Road.
Bawtry in Yorkshire has already extended a little over the county boundary into the neighbouring parish of Harworth, and the Bill already provides for one ward and part of another ward of the parish of Harworth to be moved across the county boundary to join with Bawtry. It has since been found that part of the Bawtry built-up area lies not in these wards but in the east ward.
The Amendment therefore seeks to move the relevant part of the east ward


into Bawtry as well, to complete the job which the Bill is setting out to do in this case. The change is acceptable to the local authorities concerned on both sides of the boundary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 213, line 26, at end insert "and Rothwell.".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps we may discuss with it Lords Amendment No. 13, in page 214, line 12, leave out "Rothwell".
The effect of the two Amendments is to move Rothwell from the district centred on Wakefield to that centred on Leeds. When the House was debating the matter in the middle of the night, many months ago as it seems, I advised hon. Members that it was to the advantage of the reorganisation in the area that Rothwell should be linked with Wakefield. The urban district council of Rothwell favoured this, and a locally organised poll favoured it. It would strengthen a small metropolitan district at the expense of a very large one. We do not have the same arguments here as there were in our previous debates, since whatever happens Rothwell should stay within the metropolitan county.
Since another place took its decision a week ago, my right hon. Friend has received 16 telegrams, 17 letters and a petition, now probably containing over 1,000 signatures, protesting against the decision taken in another place.
The arguments in favour of a link with Leeds which were advanced both in another place and in this House on Report were that although Rothwell is distinct from Leeds the important industrial area of Stourton is continuous with Leeds development and indistinguishable from it. Examination of the Stourton area showed that there was undoubtedly very much a meeting point there.
Another point advanced in another place was the imbalance in the Leeds district, particularly the tremendous weight to the north in terms of area and the relatively little weight to the south in the Wakefield district, coming up to within about a mile and a half of the district centre of Leeds.
The main links for employment and transport undoubtedly are between Roth-well and Leeds, both ways, although I would not give that point overwhelming importance. Although the district centred on Wakefield would be strengthened by Rothwell, it does not mean that it would not be viable without Rothwell. Therefore, it cannot be of overwhelming significance.
I felt that the case I advanced a few months ago was strong. Nevertheless, there are undoubtedly fine balances. Since the balance of advantage is relatively fine, and the arguments were finely balanced, notwithstanding the very strong opinions now being expressed by the constituents of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) that they should be in a district centred on Wakefield rather than Leeds, we felt that we should not be justifield in seeking to persuade the House to reverse the decision of another place.

Mr. Albert Roberts: The enthusiasm and feeling inside the township of Rothwell for being in an area based on Wakefield are tremendous. That is why so many telegrams and names have been sent to the Department giving reasons why Rothwell should be part of an area based on Wakefield.
The area centred on Wakefield is probably one of the poorest in Yorkshire, whereas district (b), based on Leeds, is one of the wealthiest. The people of Rothwell feel that being in the Wakefield district, district (e), would be of tremendous help to that district, and they also believe that they can be far better identified with that district.
I have been amazed by the feeling inside the area. We talk about politics and democracy. I am here to reflect the views of the grass roots of my constituency, particularly the Rothwell UDC.
I can refute the arguments advanced in the other place. Their Lordships were told about five buses coming to the Imperial Metals works inside the Roth-well urban district. But it was also stated that 4,000 people were employed there, and five buses mean only about 450 people. It is true that the part in question is only about 2½ miles from the centre of Leeds, but Rothwell itself is equidistant from Leeds and Wakefield.
Our education is linked with Stanley, which is going into the Wakefield district.
We share the same grammar school and the same secondary modern schools, which are second to none in the country. The Rothwell people are very proud of their services. I was a member of the Rothwell Council for 15 years. We had one of the best maternity and child welfare services in the country. Our housing problem is not great. We dealt with immunisation long before some of the county boroughs did.
What is local government all about? Are we to be sacrificed on the high altar of politics?
This weekend I received a number of telephone calls and telegrams about the matter. I must reflect in this Chamber the feelings of the people concerned.
In the other place it was said that Rothwell was 2½ miles from the centre of Leeds. But Cargate, part of Morley Borough, in district (b), comes within a mile and a half of the town hall of Wakefield. That argument cuts both ways.
The people in the area can identify themselves far better with the south side of my constituency than with the north side.
On two occasions Leeds County Borough has tried to annex Rothwell. The last attempt was in 1919. The arguments that were good when it tried twice and failed are equally good today.
I was born and bred in my area. The people there are very anxious to maintain what they have.
I have never been in favour of this local government reorganisation, though I was more or less in favour of the 1963 West Yorkshire Review. Size does not mean quality. It means that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money will be spent to build new edifices and so on if the Bill goes through. I would sooner see some of the smaller authorities brought together which would at least give quality service.
The people in Rothwell understand local government. I was there on Saturday evening at a dance organised by my party, and a person from Leeds said to me, "I am living in Rothwell, Mr. Roberts, and I want to stay there." I said, "Did not you like Leeds?" to which this person replied, "Well, it is far better here. There are better

amenities, better housing and first-class services all the way round." Of course, that is perfectly true. Leeds has always had contempt for the south side of the river. I have mentioned this before. Leeds people north of the river have always looked upon the south of the river as the Shoreditch of Leeds. Only now is an attempt being made to clear the place up. This is why the people in Stourton, which is contiguous to Leeds, are so anxious to be re-housed in the Rothwell area. I realise that the Government are making a sacrifice, but probably we shall have a bit of horse-trading over the weekend. They know what is in the minds of the people in Rothwell.
This Lords Amendment ought to be rejected. It was organised in another place, and noble Lords on the Conservative benches voted for this Amendment. It is, therefore, no use my hon. Friends saying that this Amendment ought to be accepted. We ought to reject it, because the people of Rothwell cannot be wrong. The right hon. Gentleman visited the constituency, unknown to me. He said that in his opinion there was a case for Rothwell going into district (e).
Reference has been made to the town's water. We know that it will be nationalised in the near future. We in Rothwell have done more good for local government than possibly Leeds City Council has. We have a large urban district about eight miles in diameter. We had dusk-to-dawn lighting before they ever made the attempt in Leeds. We had sodium lighting, going right to the edge of Leeds, while Leeds was struggling with its gas lamps. If people enjoy such services in a place where there are no pressures for housing, where the aged people are looked after and where education is first-class, what are we talking about? I plead for a rejection of Lords Amendments 12 and 13.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I hesitate to intervene in this debate because Rothwell is not part of my constituency but it happens to be the place where I live, like my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts). Therefore, I must first declare an interest as a ratepayer. It is only right that somebody with close knowledge of the urban district, such as I have, should put


a point of view which may not be the majority point of view of the people in Rothwell.
My family have lived in the Rothwell urban district for over 100 years. From my early days I recollect that Rothwell has always been a place close to Leeds. The whole community of interest of the town of Rothwell and the villages of Oulton and Woodlesford, which are the main centres of population in the Roth-well urban district, is towards the city of Leeds and the areas surrounding Leeds.
7.45 p.m.
I will not go into all the details of listing how one can define this community of interest—the transport links, the employment links and the links in public services. Anybody looking at a map can see quite clearly that Rothwell goes towards Leeds. There is a great bulge in the boundary of the city of Leeds—a bulge made up by Rothwell. If Rothwell is taken into metropolitan district (e) based on Wakefield, there will be this great bulge coming into the metropolitan district 6(b). Indeed, if one went by road from Austhorpe, on the eastern side of the city of Leeds, to Middleton which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), one would find that the quickest way would take one through the middle of Woodlesford and the middle of Oulton and Rothwell—the main centres of the community in the urban district.
Judged on a balance of a community of interest, Rothwell is part of the whole area centred upon Leeds. In many ways I should like to see it going into the Wakefield area because it is there that my own constituency has an interest. I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton when he says that Wakefield district is entirely a poor district. There is within it the urban district of Knottingley, which is part of my constituency and is in fact a very wealthy district from the point of view of industrial rateable value.
In this reorganisation nobody is trying to make the people of Rothwell into people of Leeds. They will be part of a new district, with other places besides Leeds—Pudsey, Morley, Horsforth and Otley—places where there will be different characteristics to contribute to the local

authority. The decision of the Government, having changed their minds on this, is the right one. There is this community of interest between Rothwell and Leeds which can find expression if Rothwell belongs to the new metropolitan district which is based upon the centre of Leeds.
There are two points which have been responsible for a great deal of feeling within Rothwell on this issue. First, there was the feeling that if Rothwell were part of the metropolitan district based on Leeds, it would be under-represented at metropolitan district level. Indeed, when the draft proposals from the Home Office were published and one looked at the figures, it was shown that there would be for representing Rothwell one councillor for every 7,000 electors, compared with one councillor for 5,500 electors as the average right through the district. I therefore think that there were legitimate grounds for grievance within Rothwell that it would be under-represented in the new metropolitan district council.
I know that these draft proposals from the Home Office axe intended to apply only to the first lot of elections which will take place next year, but I know how very often the thin edge of the wedge gets in and things become perpetuated from early beginnings.
If, as a result of this debate, Rothwell is returned to the metropolitan district based upon Leeds, serious consideration should be directed, therefore, to giving Rothwell better representation within Leeds. I shall gladly confer with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton on this point, for there is a case for saying that the Home Office should look at that aspect of the matter again.
Second, some of the feeling in Roth-well which has led people to want to belong to the district based upon Wakefield has arisen because they were somehow frightened of being taken over by a big city, the City of Leeds. I have already said that this is not necessarily the case. There are other areas within the metropolitan district based upon Leeds, but outside Leeds, all the way round, and Rothwell will be joining with them. There is no question of the big city taking anyone over. The whole concept of local government reorganisation envisages that the various communities will be able to contribute to the new authorities.
I hope, therefore, that if Rothwell is returned to the metropolitan district based upon Leeds, everyone within that metropolitan district will go out of his way to make Rothwell welcome. This is very important. The people of Rothwell have been chopped and changed about and in many ways have been losing out in all the temporary co-ordinations and joint committees which have been getting to work over recent months. Roth-well should now be given a little more special treatment so that, when it takes its place, as I hope it will, within the new metropolitan district based upon Leeds, it will be accepted as a very welcome partner. I know that those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Leeds constituencies are anxious that Rothwell should belong to the metropolitan district based upon Leeds, and I ask them, therefore, to use all their good offices to make Rothwell a new welcome member of that metropolitan district.
As I say, I was reluctant to intervene in this debate, knowing that there has been strong feeling in Rothwell on this issue, feeling which I, on every ground of reason, cannot share. However, I have every right, as a Member of Parliament and with the knowledge at my disposal, to put my view to the House. I am very pleased that, after all the to-ing and fro-ing during the Bill's long process, the Government are now recommending that Rothwell should be part of the metropolitan district based upon Leeds.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: First, I take the almost unprecedented step of expressing appreciation to the Minister and to the noble Lord concerned with these matters in the other place for bringing this Amendment before us. I disagree in considerable measure with some of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts). This situation and the Amendment giving expression to it is a good example of the way in which, within the Houses of Parliament in the widest sense, a degree of wisdom and justice eventually prevails, in spite of what public opinion may sometimes say about us.
Whatever criticisms may be levelled at it, the Amendment is based upon what I should describe as social justice. It is based upon the cultural, economic, geo-

graphical and historical relationships which Rothwell has with Leeds. As one of the members who represented part of south Leeds on the city council, the part which is directly associated with Roth-well, I take some exception to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton that this was a neglected area. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If we were basing our decision in this Chamber upon considerations of geography and history and cultural, social and economic links, there would, I think, be little need for any of us to speak. The decision would readily go in accordance with the wishes of some of my hon. Friends and myself, for although there is a strip of green belt between Rothwell and Wakefield, the closeness of Leeds and Rothwell is such that the boundary cuts through many of the business interests in Leeds and Rothwell, cutting through the premises themselves. As one of the representatives in the area, I recall that difficulty was often experienced in deciding where Leeds ended and Rothwell began. We had difficulty, for example, in trying to assure people in the Rothwell area that we were not in a position to help them in certain of their problems.
I greatly regret the suggestion that this Amendment is the result of political machinations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Politics was in no way the basis of my concern, and I am sure that it could not be said of the citizens and local authority of Leeds that they based their concern purely on political considerations.
I have been reading some of the literature issued on behalf of the Rothwell Urban District Council, and this brings me to the question of democracy and the position of local residents and electors. An opinion census was taken in the Rothwell area, and it was overwhelmingly in support of going into Wakefield. But that census should be put into true perspective. I should liken it to the taking of a census of opinion of the British people on the question of entering the Common Market, and allowing only one side—pro-Marketeers or anti-Marketeers—to be able to state their case, issue the ballot papers, and call upon people to express their views. That was what happened in Rothwell. The opinion census


was organised, the ballot papers were prepared, and the propaganda was circulated in the Rothwell area by people entirely committed to one point of view.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I must correct my hon. Friend. There was no propaganda circulated.

Mr. Cohen: There is such a thing as oral propaganda, and there was a great deal of that. The propaganda circulated—oral, if my hon. Friend prefers me to put it like that—was purely on one side. The questions put were loaded, and the situation was completely misrepresented. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) is quite right to say that many people are under the impression that this was the case of a small authority being taken over by a "Big Brother". A totally wrong concept was created by the people who canvassed on behalf of the prospect of going into Wakefield.
Considering the history of the association between Rothwell and Leeds, I find it hard to imagine how such a case could be stated for going into Wakefield. Apart from the fact which I have already mentioned, that the boundary is so interlaced as to prevent difficulty, there are the further facts that only recently Rothwell has become part of the Leeds postal district, the telephone code for Rothwell is now the same as for Leeds, Rothwell is represented on the Leeds Regional Hospital Board, and it is represented on the Leeds employment committee. If that is not an indication of integration of communities, I add the further fact that 90 per cent. of the people who live in the Rothwell area are employed in Leeds, and the 10 per cent. who are not are mainly in the mining industry. Those in the mining industry in Rothwell are well aware of the time limit likely to be set upon their industry there, for there has been constant decline in mining in the area, and that decline, so far as one can tell from the evidence, is likely to continue.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Never.

Mr. Cohen: I hope my hon. friend is right. But unfortunately that is the situation. The vast majority of people who live in the Rothwell area are employed in Leeds. They use Leeds as their shopping centre. The Leeds technical colleges

have more than their fair share of young people from the Rothwell area. I noticed from one of the circulars issued by the Rothwell Urban District Council that so far as transport is concerned
No Leeds Corporation transport enters the Rothwell area
That is perfectly true, but there are excellent rail and bus communications between the areas and Rothwell Urban District Council has appealed to the Leeds Corporation to provide them with transport services because the existing services are so inadequate.
I was chairman of the Care of the Children Committee in Leeds. One of the major Leeds children's homes is based in Rothwell. Hunslet Workhouse, as it was then called, is also based in Rothwell. One of the major hospitals caring for geriatrics in the Leeds Hospital Board area is in the Rothwell district. Yet we talk about Rothwell having no local connection with Leeds. That is an irresponsible attitude and it is based on parochial considerations.
The leaflet issued by the Rothwell UDC gives what I believe to be one of the most decisive factors behind the attitude they have taken. It says:
Representation: Rothwell would have three councillors among 96 in Leeds and six councillors among 72 in Wakefield
People in positions of responsibility have tended to act in what I can only describe as an irresponsible way to achieve on behalf of a very limited number that which would be of disadvantage to the people of Rothwell. I appeal to hon. Members to bear that in mind if and when we have to make a decision on the issue. The point has been made that Rothwell is 2½ miles from the centre of Leeds, and that is perfectly true. The area in which I live in Leeds is eight miles from the city centre and was part of Rothwell not many years ago. It is not suggested that that area should be taken out of Leeds, and I am delighted that that is the case. But when we have the situation which existed the last time this subject was debated, when it was being suggested that we should take Rothwell out of Leeds and bring into Leeds areas which were as much as 20 miles away, we are entitled to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nermanton that if political considerations were ever taken into account, they were taken into account then.
Consideration we are now giving to the Amendment is based purely on the question of association with Leeds and on the historical, cultural and geographical problems that could arise if we reject the Amendment. When the matter was considered in the other place members as reputable as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald and the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud supported the Amendment. That is an indication of the justification that those of us who support the Amendment feel for it. That is justification in itself for giving support to the Amendment and I hope that the House will do so.

Mr. Joseph Riley: I feel almost an intruder into the domestic wrangle on the other side of the House. But unlike the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) I have a close interest in Leeds and I have had a long experience, like the hon. Member for Leeds, South East (Mr. Cohen), on the city council. It is that knowledge and experience which prompts me to support the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) in his fight and determination to secure that the people he represents in Rothwell should have their views properly and ably expressed in the House. I owe the hon. Member an apology because of a misunderstanding of his speech. I am satisfied that he would state the case adequately because he has made it a matter of prime concern for himself in recent days.
It is almost an impertinence for other hon. Members to attempt to intervene. The House should listen to the representative of the constituency, to the man who lives in the constituency and who has been impressed by the representations made to him from Rothwell. I believe that the large body of constituents in Rothwell are determined, so far as they are concerned, that they should be allowed to join with the Wakefield arrangement.
I do not believe in merely reiterating what others have said and I shall therefore make only one point in what may be the shortest speech of the debate. If there is anything wrong with my right hon. Friend's proposals, it is that they will make the population of that metropolitan area far too large. A population of 700,000 to 800,000 is a ridiculously

high figure, particularly when there is an opportunity to equalise the numbers. To have almost 800,000 in the Leeds 6(b) district makes it too big. There is an excellent opportunity to equalise the populations to some extent.
All the points about two miles here and there mean nothing for Rothwell and Wakefield. Anyone who knows the districts knows that the trams used to pass through Rothwell and a traveller could be in the centre of Wakefield as quickly as he could be in the centre of Leeds. That does not matter. Let us take the opportunity of equalising the numbers and let us give some semblance of real local government to the new area.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Over the weekend in Leeds I was asked what would happen today in view of the change of policy brought about as a result of the Amendment in the other place. We note now that it is the Government that has proposed that the House should accept the Lords Amendment. They have changed their minds yet again. That has been at the root of the problem relating to the Rothwell issue. We know that Rothwell was first intended to have been in district 6(b) as a result of the social research, journey to work patterns and the geography, which was explained to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). Part of my constituency in Leeds, South was at one time in Rothwell and that was not so long ago. I am referring to Middleton.
The talking point in the south of Leeds is why the Government changed their minds in the first instance because this has led to the problem in Rothwell where quite understandably there is very strong feeling about it. There is very strong feeling in the city of Leeds that the change was made for narrow party political purposes, and for no other reason. It was made in order that district 6(b) should have a different political complexion. Once that sort of consideration comes in then rational argument goes out of the door. It would have been much better had we stuck to the basic arguments put forward by Redcliffe-Maud and so on in the first instance.
Part of my constituency is Hunslet. My constituency is now larger because of


redistribution. Part of Leeds, South-East which included the other part of Hunslet, is now in Leeds, South. I do not like to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) referring to Hunslet as "a sort of Shore-ditch". I have no great knowledge of Shoreditch but my hon. Friend said it in a derogatory sense. The area of South Leeds has been a poor area over the years. One has only to read The Uses of Literacy" by Professor Hoggart.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I knew Hunslet long before my hon. Friend did. It has been sadly neglected by the city council and that is why we resent its having to come under the control of a large city that has failed to do its job.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is entitled to make that argument, but I do not like the innuendo. In discussions over recent months it has been said that Hunslet is a poor area and that Rothwell is joining a poor area. It is a district that has had its problems for a hundred years and only recently has any attempt been made to deal with them, but an enormous amount has now been done.
I understand the suburban desire to opt out of that sort of thing and many people have moved out of the cities to get away from it, but local government reform has been introduced so that the overall problem may be studied and not so that one may opt out of the realities of city living.
It now looks as though Rothwell is to go back into district 6(b). There are major problems in Leeds, south of the river. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley), as a former lord mayor, will know those problems and will know that only in the last 10 or 15 years have the ravages of a hundred years started to be put right—and here I am not opportioning blame.
All of us living south of the river, whether in Rothwell or in Stourton, a part of Rothwell where a great deal needs to be done, should all put our minds to the problem, for much needs to be done. If internecine strife results from ill feeling—and here I mean across political barriers—we shall not do what has to be done to eradicate the problems. Whatever their political opinions, the people of

Hunslet are fine people. This is not a matter of Hunslet joining Rothwell, but of Rothwell coming into a much larger area with overall problems. Now that the Government have changed their minds yet again, for the third time, we can get down to the real problems.

8.15 p.m.

Sir Donald Kaberry: I agree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) and with the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). What we are in part deciding tonight is not the aggrandisement of the city of Leeds, or the denuding of the city of Wakefield. We are considering the creation of two new metropolitan districts, 6(b) to be centred on Leeds, and 6(e), to be centred on Wakefield. It will give us no help to argue about minor details and about the past and about whether boundaries are contiguous. We are considering a large metropolitan district, 6(b), which will have a population of between 700,000 and 750,000 and a smaller district, 6(e), with a population of 400,000 or fewer.
In the early hours of the morning when we discussed this matter in Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explained why he decided to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Norman-ton (Mr. Alfred Roberts) to move the urban district of Rothwell from 6(b) into 6(e), and he said that it was to help to balance population numbers. That was the main theme of his argument at that time. Others put forward other nonpolitical arguments. They were nonpolitical then, and they are non-political now. I was glad to hear it said from the Opposition side that the decision in the other place had not been motivated by any political considerations, and so that argument can be easily rubbed out.
In Committee I made a plea based on the historical fact that Leeds had never expanded towards the south or the southeast in any way. There had been a small area near Stourton, but on the whole Leeds has always expanded in other directions—north and north-west and to the east. The reasons for that were that in that direction interests changed. The inhabitants of Rothwell looked towards Wakefield and other areas.
In Committee I suggested that if it was good enough for the people of Harrogate to be able to express their opinion so strongly and to object so strongly to their inclusion in district 6(b), as had been proposed in the White Paper—

Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: And in other places.

Sir D. Kaberry: —that when the Bill was published, it was seen that Harrogate had been deleted from 6(b), it was good enough for the wishes of the people of, for instance, Rothwell, to be given heed. This was the argument overwhelmingly adduced by the hon. Member for Normanton in Committee. If the wishes of the people of Rothwell—

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: And Ripon and Otley.

Sir D. Kaberry: My hon. and gallant Friend wishes to make a speech while remaining seated. No doubt he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in due course, but I hope that he will not keep muttering.
We have heard that it is clearly against the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of Rothwell to be moved from Wakefield into the area of district 6(b). In this instance I am on the side of democracy, on the side of the wishes of the people. They had a good referendum in Rothwell and whatever view one may take of that, the question on the ballot paper was clear—"Do you wish to be moved into Wakefield or into Leeds? Put a cross against Wakefield or Leeds."
Tonight the Under-Secretary has performed a wonderful feat and in the years to come he will look back on it with great joy. He has eaten all the argument that he adduced when we discussed the matter in Committee. He will suffer greatly from indigestion and so will the area of 6(b), because he is condemning district 6(b) to a large number of inhabitants—700,000 to 750,000—while denuding the adjacent district 6(e). Above that, he is denying additional democratic representation to the Rothwell residents who, if they stay in Wakefield, will have six representatives on the metropolitan district council. If we agree with the Lords Amendment, the inhabitants of Rothwell will have three representatives on the council of district 6(b).
I would add only one word of caution on the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Goole, who put in a special plea that, for some strange reason, because of the acceptance of this Amendment from the other place, Rothwell should have six, nay, nine or perhaps a dozen representatives on the Leeds council. But what about all the other districts? What about Otley, Pudsey and Morley? They will want more. So we shall go on building up to an enormous council of preposterous size.
I hope that even at this late hour, the Under-Secretary will do another leap, another somersault. He still has time. He may swing round on his perch as much as he likes, but I should like him to swing round and come back to the proposal that we should disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I think that I can perhaps endorse the remark by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) by saying that it would be a little impertinent of me, too, to intervene in a debate of this kind. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was impertinent of him to do so.

Mr. Hiley: No.

Mr. Loughlin: I can only plead that there has been reference to Hunslet and its relationship to Rothwell and Leeds.
I plead two points: first, I married a Hunslet lass, and, secondly, for many years whilst living in the City of Leeds I supported Hunslet Rugby Football Club.
In a debate of this kind it is absolutely essential, bearing in mind that we are dealing with highly emotive issues, that hon. Members who have for a long time been associated with a particular area and feel they have a contribution to make which can be made in a completely dispassionate way—as it were, standing on the sidelines—should make that contribution, not being pressurised in any way. I invite any hon. Member to say that he has not been pressurised on certain aspects of the Bill. I have received representations from almost every parish and rural district council in my constituency, all claiming that the Bill will denude them of or reduce their powers. My hon. Friend the Member for


Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts), who was referred to as the hon. Member for Rothwell, which he is, knows that every hon. Member has been subjected to pressure from various quarters within his constituency concerning the Bill.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) was subjected to some sedentary interventions by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) who referred to a number of areas within the immediate vicinity of Leeds. He implied that if there were to be special pleading, it should be undertaken not only for Roth-well but for the other areas to which he referred. This is quite true. It is one of the problems we must face.
I told a number of local authority people in my constituency, concerning proposals that we made about Redcliffe-Maud and the Government's recommendations, that if Members of Parliament simply considered the particular sectional interests of rural district and parish councils there never would be any reorganisation of local government affairs. In consequence, I may be a little more unpopular than usual in my constituency.
This is a matter on which somebody who can manage to sit on the sidelines, but has knowledge of the area concerned, can be most helpful. I lived in Leeds for 10 or 12 years and I know Rothwell as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. I say that in no disrespectful manner. This is not a question of equalisation of numbers. If all we were dealing with was equalising area (a), area (b) and area (c), the Bill might just as well be put in the wastepaper basket. That is not what we are dealing with. There is instance after instance where, because of identity of social, political and economic interests, there is an apparent imbalance of population. I do not believe that, considering Rothwell and Leeds and Rothwell and Wakefield, the balance or imbalance of the population is of any consequence.

Mr. Albert Roberts: We ought to get it right. Rothwell is a collection of about five small townships. If Rothwell goes into Leeds it means that parts of Roth-well which are no more than two miles from Wakefield will go into Leeds.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes. Taking the geographical area, I think my hon. Friend conceded in his original remarks that Rothwell is approximately 2½ miles from Leeds.

Mr. Albert Roberts: It is equidistant.

Mr. Loughlin: What is more, it is contiguous with Leeds, which is perhaps of more significance than its geographical distance from Leeds. I know the people of Rothwell and the people of Leeds, and as one who was resident in that city for a long time but now has no sectional interest, to grind, I cannot conceive of any social, political or economic interests which would lead me to believe that Rothwell should not be included in Leeds.
The Under-Secretary of State has been invited to eat some of his words. I was a Parliamentary Secretary for 5½ years and I can tell him that if he does not eat some of his words during the time he is in office—and he happens to be one of those persons I hope to see in office till the Government fall—he will not be much of an Under-Secretary of State. Consistency has value only when one is making a Yorkshire pudding. I think that that reference is appropriate to this debate. I hope that the Lords Amendment will be accepted because, as somebody who has no vested interest, I believe it quite right that Rothwell should be included in Leeds.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Despite my southern connections I think I can at least stake place as doyen of the Leeds Members. I am a local lad by adoption. When I first went to Leeds I was attacked by the Conservative Party. My Conservative opponent put it about, all over the billboards, and it was in the headlines, that he was born in West Leeds, educated at West Leeds High School, and was a graduate of Leeds University. Somebody asked, "Why was not the Labour candidate born in West Leeds?" I said, "Because his mother was not here at the time." I have had the honour now to represent West Leeds for about 24 years.
The only argument we have had tonight has been from the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley). That was the population argument. The best argument which the Under-Secretary of State advanced at


about 4 a.m. when we considered the matter before, was his suggestion that it would even out two districts. I recognise the force of that argument. On the other hand, if we look at the map and see the gap which will be left in this new district if we take Rothwell out, we see that that makes nonsense of planning. We have only to look at the map. There were arguments adduced in the other House—I shall not adduce them here—about how far north one can go in Leeds and how far to the south one can go before one would be in Rothwell. That is the only argument I have heard.
There is no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State did a good job for his Department. After all, he went up there and spent the weekend in Rothwell; he sampled the wares of the local hostelry and got into conversation with the natives—

Sir D. Kaberry: It was closed.

Mr. Pannell: He said it was open.

Mr. Speed: Just to get the record straight, it was closed when I started but it was not closed before I left.

Mr. Pannell: I shall not carry that argument any further.
It has to be remembered that, when the Government were looking at this objectively, and considering the original Bill, Rothwell came into Leeds. It was only when my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts), stirred with local patriotism, put down an Amendment, and then was aided by the hon. Baronet the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) that the Government thought there was some merit in the case. I will not adduce reasons or impute motives, because presumably I shall get my way at the end of the day and I do not struggle for liabilities, but I am glad there has been this right about face.
However, I must take the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West up on one point. When first the proposals were put he was in favour of Harrogate coming into the district; he was in favour of Knaresborough, Ilkley and Otley, not with a predominance of Socialist votes.

Sir D. Kaberry: Of course not, because I like to support our Ministers, but it

was our Ministers' White Paper which originally suggested that those districts should go into the West Yorkshire metropolitan area.

Mr. Pannell: What becomes of the hon. Baronet's argument about population, with Rothwell with 27,000, and the unnatural bloat within the new region? It would be absolutely at bursting point with all the local imperialism which the hon. Gentleman has wanted to bring in. He made nonsense of his own arguments and he was rebutted by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott). When I went to Leeds last weekend on a social occasion with my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen), the argument was not whether Britain should go into the Common Market but whether Rothwell should return to its original allegiance. That was the politics of the matter.
I do not want to make a song and dance about the fact that the Government have changed their minds once or twice. It was Emerson who said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. The Government, as a result of the admirable arguments which have been directed towards the Bill in another place, have seen the error of their ways. They have returned Rothwell to its rightful allegiance and I have no doubt that it will prosper in the larger conurbation of Leeds.
Those of us who have been for a long time the colleagues of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton will have great sympathy and understanding for him. He need not reproach himself. He has done all that one man can do as Member for his constituency. Those of us who represent Leeds and not Normanton may differ in other arguments, but at the end of the day we hope that his constituents will recognise what he has done for them and that they will get some sort of peace and contentment within the larger conurbation of Leeds.

Mr. Denis Howell: We have listened to a fascinating debate. It is an interesting case. Like the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, who proposed that we agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, I think that I am the only other person here who has spoken in the debate who


cannot claim a close local knowledge of the district.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) put the matter very well when he said that it is a House of Commons matter and that the House of Commons has to make a decision. One cannot decide great issues about city regions, strategic planning and all the tremendous repercussions that these principles involve entirely on the basis of the wishes of the local inhabitants, although, of course, one should always try to take the wishes of the local inhabitants into account to the best of one's ability. That is a matter which we have raised many times during these debates. Occasionally we have strongly objected to some of the Government's decisions, which seemed not to take local views strongly enough into consideration, but at the end of the day any Government must make a decision on the balance of considerations as they see the interests of the neighbourhood as a whole.
Although, surprisingly enough, virtuous claims have been made by the Opposition for the policy of inconsistency, which I cannot from the Front Bench be expected to support, the only people who have been consistent throughout the matter have been the Opposition. I do not want to sound too churlish, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) that if his constituents, his local Labour Party and others in revolt find themselves in a state of indignation and perplexity, then those of us who consistently supported the view that Rothwell should be in Leeds can well understand that situation because of the constant change of Government opinion.
The proposal to include Rothwell in Leeds was not challenged in Committee in this House. Government and Opposition jointly agreed that, having regard to strategic considerations, this was the right solution. But it was challenged on Report, with the agreement of the Government for reasons best known to themselves. The Government's new attitude was jealously adhered to in another place but, because they lost there on the issue, at the 59th minute of the 11th hour they again changed their minds. In the light of all this, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and his constituents are

well entitled to be perplexed and to ask what on earth is going on.
As a former Minister, I have had experience of having to stand at the Dispatch Box and to put forward cases which were difficult to defend. I do not want to sound churlish to the Under-Secretary of State, but in the light of everything he has said, one wonders where the shining light occurred on the road to Damascus in Yorkshire. It was not evident in his speech today, which leads me perhaps to the uncharitable view that the Government's decision to accept the judgment of the House of Lords on this matter has more to do with the parliamentary timetable than with the merits of the case.
It should also be said at this stage that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton was quite correct in saying that he had never been in favour of this piece of local government re-organisation. Neither were we. We have spent 12 months demonstrating that the Bill is nonsense in terms of local government re-organisation. Indeed, on Second Reading, when I was probably carried away a little, I expressed my view strongly that the Bill had more to do with the political complexion of local government and therefore with the political complexion of this House, since parliamentary constituencies are based on local government areas, than it had to do with the merits of local government re-organisation.
The whole Bill has been imposed upon Parliament without the support of any non-party and independent considerations. It goes quite contrary to the Redcliffe-Maud proposals after that Royal Commission had spent a very long time in looking at the situation in local government. This solution is being imposed by a Conservative Government, no more and no less. Therefore, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton that I well understand and absolutely agree with his comments in that respect. I see you looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will merely add this. We on this side believe passionately that we have to have a mixture of regional local government and strong all-purpose local authorities, which Redcliffe-Maud proposed, and we shall come back to that form as soon as we can.
The Bill, as we have made clear, is not to be taken as the last word on local government re-organisation. I hope I shall be excused if I recall my Second Reading speech again. A future Labour Government cannot be expected to accept automatically the political jerrymandering in local government which the present Government are obviously carrying on.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a future Labour Government would reverse this Bill? He says that it is "political jerrymandering" He has never put that case forward before in all the 12 months in which we have discussed the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Howell: Mr. Howell rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that we shall return to Amendment No. 12.

Mr. Howell: We shall return to it very rapidly, I am glad to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but not before, with your indulgence, I say that the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made was exactly the burden of my speech on Second Reading. What we have had to do in Committee, and what we are now having to do, is to make the best we can of this wretched Bill. If we do that and take an outside look at the situation, the case for including Rothwell within the Leeds district is overwhelming, as I have always thought.
One does not have to rehearse all the arguments. The geographical case is absolutely outstanding, with Rothwell's short distance from the Leeds city centre compared with places on the north, east and west of the Leeds perimeter. I am struck by the fact, as I have been in so many of the cases considered in Committee and elsewhere, that from an industrial as well as from a social point of view Rothwell is inextricably bound up with the interests of the great city of Leeds. I find it impossible to escape coming to that conclusion. Rothwell, like so many similar districts, owes its prosperity to the tremendous importance of Leeds as a city.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) seemed to be arguing against big cities. I understand that he has had the privilege of being Lord Mayor of Leeds and I have no doubt that he

treasures that experience. But it is becoming commonplace round the country, and it makes me very sad, to try to denigrate our large cities. Let us be under no misapprehension at all about their importance. Our whole economy, since we are an industrial nation, is based largely on the industrial strength of our large cities, so we should not seek to undermine their importance.

Mr. Hiley: I did not seek to denigrate the large cities, but merely to suggest that Leeds at present is far too big for really efficient local government and that to accept the Lords Amendment would tend to equalise the populations.

Mr. Howell: I do not want to fall out with the hon. Gentleman or with the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry), but if they think that Leeds is too big, what on earth were they doing voting for Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle and, a few years ago, supporting proposals for the Greater London Council? The argument is nonsense.
The point made by the hon. Member for Pudsey brings me to my next comment, which is that what the Government have done, and on which so many of us take issue with them, is to draw the boundaries of these large urban district councils and most metropolitan authorities so tightly that they have left the large cities and metropolitan areas with all the problems of the urban society—slums, bad educational facilities, inability to plan the future, and so on—but have not provided them with any of the resources or land with which to solve them. This is one of our main criticisms, and it has happened again in this case.
In another place, Lord Sandford, for the Government, said that there was a definite division between Leeds and Rothwell which had to be accepted and understood. If we accepted that logic, it would mean that we were drawing the boundaries around Leeds so tightly as almost to strangle it as a community and that we were failing to help it to solve its problems.
Geographically, the case is overwhelming that the commercial and cultural interests of Rothwell are identified with Leeds. I take some comfort from a football analogy in drawing that conclusion. Whenever I go to see Leeds United play, which I do as often as I


can, notwithstanding their great loyalty to Rothwell, I see the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton at Elland Road supporting Leeds.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Some misinformation is being given. More people are employed in the Rothwell area than in the city of Wakefield. We do not depend upon Leeds. A false impression is being given.

Mr. Howell: I was dealing with Leeds United, but I am prepared to take a small wager that whether people are employed in Rothwell or Leeds, they are very strong supporters of Leeds United, as is my hon. Friend. That confirms my point, that, from a cultural, civic and sporting point of view, the fortunes of Rothwell are inextricably linked with those of Leeds.
My hon. Friend tells us how many people are employed in Rothwell, but whether people work one side of the boundary or another is not the essence of the situation. The industry of Rothwell and that of Leeds are interdependent. It is not a case of Rothwell being outside the great city of Leeds with entirely independent industry. That cannot be so. The industries of the two are inextricably linked because they form an industrial city region.
When we have completed our studies of the future of local government we may find that we cannot maintain a common interest even in a city region. It is in regional government terms that one is forced to think when one sees how dependent one part of a region is on another.
If this case is valid—that has always been the strength of our case—then, whatever their reasons and motives, we are glad that the Government have accepted this in the 59th minute of the 11th hour. One respects the local patriotism and the fervour of the people of Rothwell and pays tribute to the tremendous flight that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has properly put up on their behalf as their Member of Parliament. But, on any objective assessment by the House as a whole, it would be right to concur with the Lords in this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in corrigendum, page 1, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert:
the rural district of Warmley;
the rural district of Sodbury, except for the parish of Alderley;

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr, Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I hope that it will also be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 15, in corrigendum, page 1, line 15, at end insert:
the rural district of Thornbury, except the parishes of Alkington, Berkeley, Ham and Stone, Hamfallow and Hinton".

Mr. Page: These Amendments move from Avon to Gloucestershire the five parishes of Alkington, Berkeley, Hamfallow, Ham and Stone and Hinton. Those parishes are now part of the Thornbury rural district. The Amendments also move into Gloucestershire Alderley, which is part of Sodbury rural district. The populations involved in the five parishes amount to just over 6,000; in the parish of Alderley the population is only 50 people.
The Government have accepted the movement of these five parishes from Avon into Gloucestershire because, having studied the matter with some care and having followed the debates on the Bill on the boundary between the county of Avon and the county of Gloucestershire, we have concluded that there are links between those five Berkeley parishes and the area based on Dursley in Gloucestershire. It seems that everybody concerned will be satisfied if those parishes are moved into Gloucestershire.
The Alderley parish is one of four on the eastern boundary of the county of Avon, and the other three Hawkesbury, Badminton and Acton Turville from a geographical point of view could not be divided from one another. But Alderley is on the boundary of Gloucestershire and has its connections with Wootton under Edge, a town which is to remain in Gloucestershire. Alderley looks to that town for various services, and therefore the Amendment places the small parish of Alderley in Gloucestershire.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: This debate has been thrust upon us


suddenly and I apologise to the House if I have not got all my references at my finger tips. Incidentally, I was sorely tempted to speak on the previous Amendment since I was born in Leeds and was brought up in the West Riding, but I exercised a becoming restraint.
I must speak on this pair of Amendments because when I spoke on this matter in Committee I said that I considered that in the case of Thornbury there was a very nice balance as to whether they should go into Gloucestershire or into Avon as the Minister at that time proposed. I recognise that there were points for and against. However, I thought that the case in respect of the Sodbury parishes was much less substantial.
In Committee the Minister took the contrary view, saying that the Sodbury case was possibly open to question. However, he was adamant about the Thorn-bury parishes and said this:
I have far more doubt about the Sodbury parishes than I have about the Thornbury ones. I am satisfied that we are right, and that we shall benefit those Thornbury parishes by keeping them within Avon—and in the plans for development of the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 20th January, 1972, c. 828–9.]
The right hon. Gentleman says that his change of mind is due to debates that we have had. However, his change of mind has come about very late, because even on Report, when talking about the Thornbury parishes, the Minister said this:
It may be right for the Local Government Boundary Commission to review this in due course. But it is right for the purpose of the Bill to retain the boundary of the rural district council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 169.]
No progress was made at that stage. Only in the Lords did it appear that there was a possibility that the Government would shift their ground, but even there the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare resisted the matter in August, saying:
… both … rural districts are in favour of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Sandford has telegrams from both of them and this was the underlying reason why the boundary is drawn as it is at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 10th August, 1972, Vol. 334, c. 1487.]
Only latterly, after the presentation of a petition by the noble Baroness, Baroness Berkeley did the Lords begin to shift.
Although only 7,000 people are involved, it should be pointed out that the Government are sanctioning a change in the boundaries of the new county of Avon. On a number of occasions before being ruled out of order by the Chair I have objected to the name "Avon" There are valid reasons for the objection. It is unfortunate that the name "the county of Avon" came at the head of the list of non-metropolitan counties, because to some extent this engendered a feeling in the Government's mind that on this first non-metropolitan county all Amendments must be resisted because any signs of a concession would only encourage more demands in the debates to come.
Avon has had a raw deal. In the case of the parishes centred on Berkeley, it is well known that there has been considerable pressure to go into Gloucestershire and that with the arguments economically, socially and educationally being possibly in that direction the Government are right to accede to the requests of the local people for this change.
In the case of Alderley, the Government say that they are prepared to listen to the local people. The population of Alderley is only 50. I have canvassed Alderley on an alphabetical register. I had an unfruitful afternoon. Not only was it very difficult to locate places, but I received minimal support when I got there.
If the Minister is prepared to listen to comparatively small numbers of people and thinks that it is worth breaking up the boundaries of the county of Avon to cater for local democracy—he says this after all the talks we have had about how Avon in its state as conceived by the Minister was the perfect balance between rural and urban development—it makes a mockery of the treatment meted out elsewhere. The boundaries on the south side of the county have been treated in a cavalier fashion.
If the Minister says that we should accept these Amendments because the local people have expressed a preference for one county as opposed to another, there is a slight inconsistency in that the Government have been prepared to ignore the overwhelming expression of opinion in the south of the county with regard to the proposals relating to Somerset. As


the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said on Report in that area there was an 85 per cent. vote in favour of remaining in Somerset and only 15 per cent. vote in favour of going into Avon.
The Minister tried to belittle those figures by saying that only 62 per cent. of those eligible to vote were in favour of Somerset, but this was an unbecoming argument for him to advance, because virtually no Government this century have had the support of even 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote, yet they have claimed substantial mandates for all sorts of things.
The importance of the Government's recommending these Amendments does not lie so much in the comparatively small numbers involved. It shows that under pressure, including the pressure of time, they are prepared to make concessions to some areas, whereas the claims of other areas which are much more pressing, legitimate and substantial have not been met. I believe that the House will yet come to regret what has been done in the Bill through the creation of the county of Avon. There is trouble in store, first, because of the bitterness and resentment caused, and, second, because, on the Minister's own admission, the whole of the Avon county will have to be restructured within a comparatively short time.
I appreciate that at this late stage of the Bill's progress, it is not possible for the Minister to do anything about that larger question. But in welcoming the two Amendments, in so far as they meet the aspirations of the local people—the arguments are nicely balanced, I strongly ask the Minister to consider the other claims in the county of Avon and possibly to think of an amending Bill within the next Session.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in Corrigendum, page 3, leave out lines 27 to 30.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this we are to discuss the following Lords Amendments:
No. 18, in Corrigendum, page 3, line 32, leave out "the parish of Hum and" and insert:
the parishes of Hurn and St. Leonards and St. Ives'.
No. 19, in Corrigendum, page 3, line 33, leave out "south-west" and insert "west".
No. 20, in Corrigendum, page 3, line 35, at end insert:
and so much of the parish of Sopley as lies west of the boundary referred to in paragraph 10A of Part III of this Schedule.
No. 24, in Corrigendum, page 8, line 1, leave out paragraph 9.
No. 25, in Corrigendum, page 8, line 7, leave out from "line" to end of line 8 and insert:
from the neighbourhood of Barrett's Copse to the River Mude in the neighbourhood of Waterhouse Farm and thence along that river downstream to the parish boundary.
10A. The boundary dividing the parish of Sopley referred to an Part II of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the River Avon.
No. 27 in page 221, line 21, at end insert:
(ii) the part of the existing parish of Christchurch East in Hampshire.
No. 28 in page 221, line 31, at end insert:
(rr) the part of the existing garish of Sopley in Hampshire.
No. 29 in page 222, leave out lines 4 and 5.
No. 30 in page 222, line 15, at end insert:
(8A) The part of the existing parish of Sopley in Dorset shah be added to the parish of Hum.

Mr. Page: This group of Amendments deals with the boundary of the Hampshire and Dorset counties from Lymington in the south-east of what we originally had as the Dorset county towards the northwest and up to the north to the boundary of Ringwood.
In another place an Amendment was accepted restoring the whole of the borough of Lymington to Hampshire. As we had it in the Bill, Lymington would have been a part of Dorset and would


have made, perhaps with Christchurch, a reasonable district alongside the rather larger district of Bournemouth, separating Bournemouth from the New Forest.
I think that after studying what was said in another place this House will wish to accept the Lords Amendment, that the whole of the borough of Lymington should return to Hampshire. The town of Lymington has strong ties with the New Forest and the Solent. I would not go so far as to say that there is not a boundary which could be drawn leaving part of the existing borough of Lymington in the Christchurch area, because of a continuous build-up from Christchurch into Lymington. Nevertheless, the decision having been made, I do not think that the argument is strong enough not to accept that the whole borough of Lymington should go into Hampshire.
On the principle that the town of Lymington is closely related to the New Forest, we looked again at the boundary moving northwards from Lymington through the parish of Christchurch to the parish of Sopley and up to the parish of St. Leonards and St. Ives, which is to the south of Ringwood. On the principle of taking those areas which have the closest connection with the New Forest back into Hampshire, we were prepared to accept Amendments removing the eastern part of the parish of Christchurch East into Hampshire and the eastern part of the parish of Sopley into Hampshire. But with regard to the parish of St. Leonards and St. Ives we looked again at the development in the south of that parish, which is strongly connected with the parishes to the south-west. It seemed that the development from the south-west of St. Leonards and St. Ives would move into St. Leonards and St. Ives, and that that parish should now be with Dorset. It is related to Ringwood in the north of the parish, but in the south it is very much related to the areas which we have now in Dorset, and which have always been in Dorset.
Therefore, the group of Amendments would place St. Leonards and St. Ives in Dorset, and no doubt part of the district of Christchurch—though it is not for me to say that before I receive recommendations from the Boundary Commission; the eastern parts of the parishes

of Sopley and Christchurch East in Hampshire; and the whole of the borough of Lymington in Hampshire.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to ask him one or two questions. I do it in this way because, no doubt for the best of reasons, he is not replying to a debate.
It seems to me that the arguments the right hon. Gentleman first put up in connection with the boundary arrangements have a great deal of validity. Why has he changed his mind, other than for the obvious reasons that he does not want to upset a Lords Amendment? Was it not his own view, as it is mine, that there is a rather more logical attachment to Dorset, if one looks at Dorset county, of what is now in Hampshire—that is, the borough of Lymington moving towards Christchurch and including the borough of Christchurch and the parish of Christchurch East which is now divided into two? Is it not a fact that as Lymington borders on to Christchurch, one has a more or less continuous built-up area? What possible new facts are there that have made the Minister change his mind, other than the fortuitous one of an Amendment in the Lords?

Mr. Graham Page: There was a very thorough debate in the Lords and, although I may have a personal opinion, there could be a boundary between Christchurch and Lymington drawn along the Taddiford Gap so that east of the Taddiford Gap one takes the built-up area of Lymington into Christchurch. There is also the present boundary between Christchurch and Lymington along the Walkford Brook which is a rather narrower boundary than the Taddiford Gap. But it is a matter of debate and argument, and certainly the public feeling in Lymington, if one is to take that into account, was that they should stay in Hampshire. We took that into account. But it does make good local government for the town of Lymington to be in Hampshire, and it did not seem right to upset the decision on that by niggling over the boundary at the west of the borough.

Mr. David Price: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member


for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) who has been detained as a witness in the Crown Court at Winchester. I wish to make a short intervention.
As a Hampshire Member of Parliament, I am delighted that the borough of Lymington will now form part of the new non-metropolitan county of Hampshire. I will not weary the House by repeating the very convincing arguments advanced in another place in favour of Lymington remaining in Hampshire. There is no doubt that this is what the overwhelming majority of the people in that borough wanted. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on accepting the will of the people so gracefully.
I realise that on administrative grounds, other solutions might have existed in his Department. However, this happy outcome leaves an important residual problem—that of Christchurch. The idea of amalgamating Lymington and Christchurch together to form a second-tier authority was, in my judgment, eminently sound. I exclude the detailed arguments about the parishes of Hurn and Christchurch East. One would have produced a new district council of 67,000 with considerable affinity of interest, as has already been said.
As a result of Lymington staying in Hampshire, Lymington will join the present New Forest rural district, the larger part of the Ringwood and Fording-bridge rural district producing a new New Forest District Council of 130,000 people. This, no doubt, will work successfully. I know many of the people concerned and they will make it work. But it is rather on the large size for a new district council in a primarily rural area.
Past of my present constituency is within the New Forest RDC and hence is within the new district council boundaries. My real concern is for Christchurch. This will be a new district council in Dorset with a population of less than 40,000. I am confident that the people of Christchurch will make a go of it. But surely the right answer was to have left Christchurch in Hampshire and not put it into Dorset. Then Lymington and Christchurch would have been amalgamated to form a new district council as was my right hon. Friend's intention.
As I understand it—he has not said it tonight, but I believe this to be the point—my right hon. Friend argues that the new Dorset needs Christchurch. With Christchurch, the new Dorset has a population of 515,000. Without Christchurch, the new Dorset has a population of 483,000. So we are talking here about a 6 per cent. reduction in the new Dorset. I cannot believe that the future viability of the new Dorset stands or falls by the addition or subtraction of 6 per cent. of its potential population right down in its new south-eastern corner.
The other argument against retention of Christchurch by the new Hampshire might be that the new Hampshire is already large enough. We recognise that the new Hampshire will be one of the largest of the new counties in Britain. But that argument, I believe, is no longer relevant because, as we shall see in the next set of Amendments, the Isle of Wight is not to be part of the new Hampshire but is to remain in its own right as a non-metropolitan county. But the combined population of Lymington and Christchurch is considerably less than that of the Isle of Wight. I conclude, therefore, that there is no validity in that argument.
I repeat my view that the correct solution is that both Lymington and Christchurch should remain in Hampshire and together form a new district council. It is probably too late, under our procedures, to add Christchurch to Lymington to form a new district council, but I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be possible for him to direct the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to review the whole position of Christchurch consequential upon the decision of the other place to keep Lymington in Hampshire. I think that Clause 49, soon to be Section 49, provides relevant authority for my right hon. Friend.
I realise that time is vital in this matter, but I am confident that the English Commission could carry out its examination in under a month. If, after examination, the Commission decided to recommend that the boundaries should remain as currently drafted, they would then stand. But everyone concerned—this is the vital point—would feel that the new situation had been fully examined and that justice was being done. If, on the other hand, 


the Commission were to recommend that Christchurch should be part of the new Hampshire, my right hon. Friend would implement that at once and, in my judgment, all would be light and happiness in south-east Hampshire.

Mr. Graham Page: By leave of the House, may I speak again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has asked me specifically whether the Secretary of State would give a direction on this subject to the Boundary Commission?
Although the Boundary Commission has the right to make any investigation it chooses after 1st April, 1974, I would not give it any direction to look at these boundaries before that date. I am convinced that the right boundary here is one which takes Christchurch into the same county as the areas of Poole and Bournemouth. There is that continuous buildup from Sandbanks to the Taddiford Gap, at least to the boundary of Lymington, and I think that they should be in the same county, but not in the same districts. I should not wish to give any direction to the Boundary Commission to unsettle that at the present time, although the Commission has power as an independent body, after 1974, to investigate any boundaries and make recommendations to the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 21 in corrigendum, page 4, leave out line 7.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I understand that with it it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 22, in, corrigendum, Page 4, line 29, at end insert:


"Isle of Wight
The administrative county of Isle of Wight."


The Amendments make the Isle of Wight a new county separate from Hampshire. I undertook to look again at the future local government of the Isle of Wight to see what special or revised arrangements could be made in the Bill. Originally the Isle of Wight was part of the county of Hampshire. My conclusion now is that the best solution is for the

island to become a separate new county rather than that we should introduce any special arrangements for additional functions to be delegated to the island. In short, therefore, I propose to continue the present position, because the Isle of Wight is at present a county.
There were three possible lines of action. First, we could have set a special authority for the island within the overall structure of a non-metropolitan county council responsible for both Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but that would have cut across many principles of the Bill. It is essential that each county council shall have full responsibility over the whole range of its functions for the whole of its area, and to breach that principle would be a serious step.
Second, we could have made the Isle of Wight a metropolitan district within a non-metropolitan county as was proposed by the Opposition at one time, but I think that the objections are similar there in that a county should have the full county function over the whole of its area and should not have exceptions by becoming some sort of hybrid county, partly metropolitan and partly non-metropolitan.

Mr. Oakes: I think that our proposal was that the whole of Hampshire be a metropolitan county and the Isle of Wight should be a metropolitan district of that metropolitan county.

Mr. Graham Page: I said that there were three alternatives. I have dealt with two of them and the third was that which the hon. Member mentioned. That was the main argument of the Opposition during the course of the Bill.

Mr. John Silkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for intervening on a point of information? He should reread the proceedings in the earlier stages. The third alternative was suggested by one of his hon. Friends and was supported by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee stage.

Mr. Graham Page: I should never have started on this. It is perfectly simple to make the island a county on its own, and that is the course we have chosen. I hope it is satisfactory to the House. It breaches our formula of population; I recognise at once that the island has a population of only 109,000, which would


be considerably smaller than that of other authorities and counties. But the Isle of Wight is a unique case, and I am sure from the response I had when I was addressing the House on the subject before that the House wished us to treat it as a unique case. No other place is faced with the problems of communication with its neighbours as the Isle of Wight is so faced. The difference is not a matter of degree; it is a difference of geography.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: This decision is the last word in absurdity. I am not objecting particularly to the Isle of Wight getting its county status but it shows clearly that the whole decision for the southern part of Hampshire, and indeed for Hampshire itself, is ludicrous.
Instead, the Isle of Wight, as with Southampton and Portsmouth, should have been a metropolitan district inside the metropolitan county of Hampshire. I do not want to go over the old arguments. We all know the size of the county of Hampshire. The Minister admitted in one debate that in ten years time when the population exceeds 2 million Hampshire will become a full metropolitan county and we shall have to change the whole system all over again.
9.30 p.m.
That shows how silly it all is. Here is the Isle of Wight with a population of 109,000—I appreciate that there are special geographical reasons—to be given full county status while great cities such as Portsmouth and Southampton, with populations of more than 200,000, are to be reduced to district councils. The more I see of the way in which the Government have dealt with southern Hampshire, the more I believe it to be plain straight forward political gerrymandering.
The whole object of the Bill, particularly these provisions, is to destroy the cities in favour of the counties. The Government have given way to the special case for Isle of Wight which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has made for it The Government have given in to a county, a Conservative county, one that they know will remain Conservative, but they will not similarly give in to a city because it is clear that a city may be a Socialist city,

as it is at the moment. Throughout the Bill there has been this jiggery-pokery on political lines, and this latest decision merely re-emphasises the opinion that I have always held.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I welcome the Amendment with the greatest relief and I support it with the utmost vigour. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) should have made an intervention of that sort, because my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Amendment has nothing to do with size, but is because of the Isle of Wight's isolation, communications and transport problems. In any event, it is resources per head of the population that matter, not the number of people. Much as I sympathise with Portsmouth and Southampton, I do not see how my right hon. Friend could have breached the principle of the Bill and have treated them any differently from other county boroughs.
On Second Reading in another place, supporting county status for the Isle of Wight, the noble Lord Lord Redcliffe-Maud expressed the hopes of the whole island when he said that the Government should relent with "the last gasp of Love's latest breath". In quoting from that beautiful Elizabethan sonnet he was expressing the views of all of us. It is a refreshing gasp that we are now receiving. It may not be a gasp of love, but it certainly is a sound breath of common sense.
I thank my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for the understanding of the island's problems that they have shown throughout the Bill. I thank, too, all my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite and noble Lords in another place for their strenuous efforts to create an exception for the Isle of Wight, as both Houses have recognised as being necessary. If this honourable House accepts the Amendment, as I am sure it will, I am certain that future generations of islanders will justify the faith that Parliament is placing in them.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) is justifiably pleased tonight. I share his pleasure, because any Member for Parliament who obtains county status for his constituency has every right to be proud of himself and if I were to obtain county


status for Deptford, I might be equally proud of myself.
I am sorry that at this happy love feast there should be a spectre, but the spectre, I fear, is that of common sense, and I regret to say that it is represented by me. What their Lordships propose and what the Government agree to do is to turn the Isle of Wight, under the new Bill, with all that that implies, into a county. I yield to nobody, not even to the hon. Gentleman, in my love and respect for the Isle of Wight. But for Deptford, I almost envy him his constituency.
The question is: is what is proposed the right status under the Bill for the Isle of Wight? It is proposed that the Isle of Wight shall become an English county. So we are entitled to ask: what is an English county? The dictionary definition—I have slightly abbreviated the abbreviated Oxford English dictionary definition because we do not want to take too much time—is:
Territorial division treated as an administrative entity.
That definition, under the Bill, is equally true of districts, so we have to go a little closer than that.
How much closer can we go than to the Minister himself to find how he divides the responsibilities between county and district? We find that in Committee on 25th November last year when the Minister said:
We can divide the functions of government reasonably between the two spheres"—
that is, between county and district—
one covering a wider area geographically and resourcefully and the other carrying out its functions more locally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 25th November, 1971; c. 40.]
So there we have that difference. But not all territorial divisions covering, in the Minister's words, a wider area geographically have been made counties.
We have, for example, Herefordshire, which was a county before and would dearly like to have been a county under the new set-up. So there must be some further limitation.
For that further limitation we can do no better than to go to the White Paper at page 13, paragraph 7, where it says:
The Government accept the view that the units appropriate to the provision of these services should have populations broadly within

the range of 250,000 to 1 million. These limits should not be inflexible, but it should only be in special circumstances that these services are provided with populations below this range.
In rejecting the idea of some special solution for the Isle of Wight, the Minister was unwilling to breach a principle. So far two principles have been breached.
We now have the criteria for an English county from the fount. First, an English county must cover a wide area geographically; secondly, it must have a population broadly between 250,000 and 1 million. If it does not fit those criteria and one still wants to make it a county, there must be special circumstances. I allow that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight says there are special circumstances.
Let us see how the Isle of Wight measures up to these criteria. Does it cover a wide area geographically? The area of the Isle of Wight—I hope the hon. Gentleman will not correct me too forcefully; geography is not my strongest forte—is about 73 miles square.

Mr. Woodnutt: Mr. Woodnutt indicated assent.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman agrees with my poor mathematics. I think he will also agree, therefore, that it does not cover a wide area geographically. There may be other reasons for wanting the Isle of Wight to have county status, but that is not one.
Now the second of the criteria. The population of the Isle of Wight is 109,000. True, the White Paper spoke of the limits of population being "broadly" 250,000 to 1 million. But how broad is broad? Can one think that the White Paper contemplated that the lower figure of these limits should be less than one-half? In other words, if it had done that, would it not equally have contemplated an upper limit of not 1 million, but 2½ million?

Mr. Woodnutt: The right hon. Gentleman said "except in exceptional circumstances". Does he agree that as the only single island separated from the mainland by five miles of sea, it is very exceptional?

Mr. Silkin: I think if the hon. Gentleman listens a little longer he will see that I shall come, not to exceptional circumstances—I want to use the correct wording in this case so that the Minister shall not have another breach of principle—but to special circumstances. which is what we


are coming to, and I hope that we may, perhaps, deal with this as we go along.
On this question of population, then, there are these limits: not inflexible; broad; but, nevertheless, between 250,000 and 1 million. How are we to construe this? The hon. Gentleman the then Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment, now the Minister for Aerospace, said in Committee—and here is yet another authority for us—
If one were to seek authorities in the 100,000, 120,000 or 140,000 range, the local government reorganisation Bill would not look like the present Bill.… There would be endless permutations throughout the country.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 25th January, 1972; c. 978.]
As I hear this proposal, dimly throughout this land of ours I can feel endless permutations going on, showing up this Bill, because the local government reorganisation Bill after this, if one follows what the Under-Secretary said, will not look like the present Bill at all. I am surprised that the Minister should appear to smile at this terrible complication about to overthrow him, but I am equally astonished that the Minister can talk at the same time about not accepting Amendments, other than that which he is accepting, because they might breach a principle. This not only breaches a principle; it explodes it.
If one looks at what the Government are doing at this time it becomes even more extraordinary, remembering that the Under-Secretary of State used those monumental words rejecting county status under the Bill for what at this time is a county, namely, Herefordshire. It is worth considering the parallel. I hope that for just a few minutes I shall have some of the sympathy of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight with me. As a man deeply concerned to get county status for his island, for his constituency, perhaps he can spare a little bit of sympathy for someone else trying to get county status.
Both Hereford and the Isle of Wight, as I pointed out, used to be counties. Both have, I think he would agree, a community of population, a community of interest, a community of planning, a community of communications, and both, let us agree, have an ancient history of independent local government. This is true of both Hereford and the Isle of Wight. There are differences. I would

be the first to concede this. The first difference is that the Isle of Wight is an island. Poor old Herefordshire. It has the misfortune that it is not an island. But it has one compensating difference. Whereas the population of the Isle of Wight is 109,000, the population of Hereford is 140,000.
Once again I would remind the House of the words of the Under-Secretary, although this time I will spare the House quotation of his words, when he was saying that we could not possibly even have a county with a population as low as 140,000—in England at any rate; in Wales, he was not prepared to argue, but in England we could not. How much more, therefore, would that apply to the Isle of Wight? Frankly, I was sorry about Herefordshire. He is not here at the moment, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) fought a very gallant campaign on behalf of Herefordshire, and certainly 140,000 is much nearer the broad limit given in the White Paper. I think the House would agree, than 109,000.
9.45 p.m.
What I am arguing is that what is sauce for the goose of Herefordshire—that is, before the Minister cooked its goose—is also sauce for the gander of the Isle of Wight. I want to tell the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that I am not all bad, that I see something in the local independence of the Isle of Wight. However, I am looking at the solution. It must be a solution, if I may borrow the Minister's words, that does not breach any principle in the Bill.
The Bill is already reeling from the endless permutations of which the Under-Secretary of State spoke. I do not want to deny the Isle of Wight its local independence. On the contrary, I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. But I want it to fall within the Government's own criteria. There have been few examples of principle throughout the Bill. It has been a patchwork quilt. On one day Wilmslow has been in greater Manchester, the next day it has been out. Rothwell was out of Leeds and then it was in Leeds. These matters go on and on. Let there be some principle.
It defeats me and most hon. Members, although which way they will vote is another matter, how one can possibly justify


the Isle of Wight, with its 109,000 population, as a county with all that that implies in education, social services, and other matters, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) points out, it is proposed to reduce the former county borough of Portsmouth, with a population of 197,000 and a fine education record, and Southampton, with a population of 214,000 and an equally fine education record, to the status of district councils. That screams to folly, like most of the Bill.
I propose to ask my hon. Friends to assist me in rejecting the Amendment. My solution is that as soon as possible—may-be it will have to be in the next Session, but I do not mind—the Government should introduce amending legislation to deal with Hampshire. They should make Hampshire, as was suggested by hon. Members on both sides, a metropolitan county and they should give the Isle of Wight metropolitan district status. It is no good saying, "Oh dear, that will put Hampshire into disarray, and it will not know whether it is coming or going" because the Minister has already put Hampshire into disarray. For 18 months the Minister has been telling Hampshire that it will be a non-metropolitan county containing the Isle of Wight. Incidentally, he will reduce the size of the Hampshire County Council by approximately eight seats. Of course, there will be a difference and it will have to be thought about again in Hampshire.
The time has come when even this Government should act sensibly and with a due sense of principle. I do not believe that the Government will vote against the Lords Amendment, but I strongly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so. I offer that advice not in the spirit of wanting to deny local independence to the Isle of Wight but in the spirit of giving local independence to Southampton and Portsmouth, with their equally ancient and equally long, proud history of local independent government.

Mr. David Price: It is only the remarks of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) which have brought me to my feet. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) and my right hon.

Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development not only for doing justice but for showing common sense. The right hon. Member for Deptford, for whom he knows I have great devotion, was tonight below his normal form of generosity. The right hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between the Isle of Wight and Herefordshire. I think that he has fallen below that intellectual capacity and that sensitive imagination which I have always believed him to possess.
If we had been sitting here in about the year 20,000 B.C., the right hon. Gentleman's argument would have had great validity, but since then, due to the forces of nature, the Isle of Wight has been separated from the mainland. That is the reason for the exception. Although the right hon. Gentleman is qualified as a lawyer, I did not think that he was so narrowly casuistic that he must never make an exception. I think he will agree that consistency in every detail is the refuge of the very little mind.

Mr. John Silkin: I think that the correct quotation is, "Hobgoblin of small minds". At any rate, that was Sir Winston Churchill's view of it. I want the hon. Gentleman fully to understand my position. I am defending a special status for the Isle of Wight. The status of metropolitan district is a very important one. Many areas with much larger populations are very pleased and proud to have that status. I believe I am right in saying that the lowest population of metropolitan district in England at this moment under the Bill is 170,000 to 175,000.

Mr. Price: I do not deny that, but those areas are all mainland areas. The whole case of my hon. Friend has been the fact that the Isle of Wight, is, curiously enough, an island. The right hon. Gentleman has been arguing as though somehow my right hon. Friend and the House of Lords have conferred a status on the Isle of Wight which has never existed, but he seems to have forgotten that it is now a county. The whole argument concerns whether it should be demoted, from a county and become a district council, if we had a different solution in Hampshire. The plain fact is that it is at present a county, and that is what the argument is about.


Now the right hon. Gentleman is using his highly imaginative mind.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is apparently worried about the parallel I drew with Herefordshire. That, too, is a county which is being demoted to nothing.

Mr. Price: I am sorry for the people of Herefordshire but if an exception is to be made I cannot see a better case than for something which is not on the mainland. It is a fact of geography. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour to visit my home on the coast of Hampshire, opposite the Isle of Wight. He will find that it takes a great deal of time to get from where I live, although it is only about two and a half miles away from the Isle of Wight, to the island. The quickest way is by powerboat, but I am not rich enough to possess one.
The solution now proposed seems to me to be an admirable answer to the very difficult problems of the Isle of Wight. The heavy weather which the right hon. Gentleman is making about the fact that we on the mainland in Hampshire have been working out our arrangements is irrelevant. I welcome very much, on behalf of the mainland of Hampshire, this very happy solution to the future of the Isle of Wight.

Sir Clive Bossom: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to put the record straight. Herefordshire is not being demoted. It is merging with Worcestershire. That is not a demotion.

Mr. James Hill: As someone who has fought for his constituency—and I know that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) has fought for his—I believe that we should not be small-minded enough tonight not to be delighted by the success of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt). The hon. Member campaigned with the excellence of Napoleon, and he certainly conquered. How he conquered the Minister I cannot even guess. We have

not been successful with Southampton, and we much regret it, but we hope that we will get further consideration in the review. It would be ill of the House tonight to vote against the Isle of Wight in order to make a political point.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Like the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) I intervene only because of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). I am very fond of the Isle of Wight. It is an extremely nice place and I have spent many happy hours there. However, my right hon. Friend spoke of the reduction of Portsmouth and Southampton to the status of district councils, and drew the contrast with the creation of a new county with full powers but having a population of only 190,000—

Mr. Woodnutt: It is not a question of the creation of a new county but one of leaving an existing county as it is.

Mr. Cocks: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but under the Bill and throughout our discussions we have given these criteria and have been told that areas which do not meet them cannot have their legitimate aspirations satisfied. During the Report stage the House was seized of the contradiction of reducing the county of Somerset to a population of 360,000, and reducing the city of Bristol, with a population of 424,000—four times the population of the Isle of Wight—to a district council, stripped of its powers though retaining control of housing, though in that case it is virtually emasculated by the housing Acts, that the Government majority slumped to five and in another place they were also in very serious trouble because of the anomalies in the Avon county.
Whilst I bear the Isle of Wight no ill will, I must tell the Government that this sort of anomaly will create a great deal of ill will in the very many other large cities which are being virtually stripped down and degraded by the Bill.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 130.

Division No. 346.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biffen, John
Bowden, Andrew


Allason, James (Hemel Hempatead)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brewis, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Blaker, Peter
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylabone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Benyon, W.
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Carlisle, Mark


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert




Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John
Raison, Timothy


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Redmond, Robert


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Farr, John
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


F[...]dler, Michael
Luce, R. N.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Spence, John


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Green, Alan
Moate, Roger
Trew, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Montgomery. Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hall-Davis A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom
Woodnutt, Mark


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally



Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John



Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Hamish Gray.


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian





NOES


Abse, Leo
Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh


Allen, Scholefield
Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Golding, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Miller, Dr. M, S.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Harrison. Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian




Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Huckfield, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kerr, Russell
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rees Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, Robert (B[...]ston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)







Rose, Paul B.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Sillars, James
Wainwright, Edwin



Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, George
Mr. Tom Pendry and


Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Strang, Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Speed.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 26, in page 221, line 16, at end insert:
(ee) the part of the existing parish of Burnham in Berkshire;
(eee) the part of the existing parish of Burnham in Buckinghamshire".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is purely consequential on the acceptance on Report of the Amendment moved by the Opposition putting Britwell into Berkshire. Doing this and leaving the rest of the parish of Burnham in Buckinghamshire divides the parish and requires the establishment of new parishes, one for Britwell and one for the remainder of the parish, by listing the two parts of the divided parish in paragraph 1 of Part IV of the Schedule. This will establish the two areas as parishes.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3

CONFERRING OF BOROUGH STATUS ON DISTRICTS

Lords Amendment: No. 34, in page 3, line 5, leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment it will

be convenient to discuss the following Lords Amendments: No. 35, No. 47, No. 74, No. 75, No. 86, No. 116, No. 117, Nos. 421 to 427, No. 429 and Amendment No. 4 to No. 429, and Nos. 430 to 432.

Mr. Oakes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Lords Amendment No. 429 is a new Clause 238 to replace the provisions of Clause 3, in the main beneficial, and we on this side would not disagree with that.
However, there is one part of the new Clause, namely subsection (6)(b), which allows a parish council to entitle its chairman as town mayor and its vice-chairman as deputy town mayor, with which we disagree.
Earlier I raised the point with Mr. Speaker that, in view of the unprecedented situation we are in, as we received the Amendments this morning and as we had to table Amendments to those Amendments during the course of the day, particularly when an Amendment as late as No. 429 is taken with Amendment No. 34, we are in a difficulty as regards tabling any Amendment which should normally reach the Notice Paper.
Earlier Mr. Speaker intimated that, because of the unusual circumstances, he would, depending on each case, look favourably on manuscript Amendments. This is clearly such an exceptional case because of the late number of the Lords Amendment and the impossibility of dealing with the matter in any other way than by voting against Lords Amendment No. 429, which we are reluctant to do.
I therefore seek leave to move a manuscript Amendment, which would be in effect Amendment No. 429, in line 40, to delete lines 40 to 42.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I greatly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his difficulties. I do not know whether Mr. Speaker has seen the Amendment. He said that he would consider it favourably, but he may not have considered it yet. In any case the hon. Gentleman would be perfectly entitled to table an Amendment today and have it reached later.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That


would be difficult, because we should have debated the Clause and would not be able to return to it on Amendment. I hope that you will be able to meet the hon. Gentleman's request, and probably the best way to deal with this is by selecting the manuscript Amendment, it that is acceptable to you.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful suggestion, but I am not allowed to select an Amendment. It is the only power of Mr. Speaker that I am not allowed to exercise. I am therefore in a difficult position. However, this matter can be perfectly well discussed today.

Mr. Oakes: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have reached an impasse. It is impossible. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if we debated an Amendment I should be precluded then from speaking on it because we would already have discussed the matter.
If Mr. Speaker has not yet seen the Amendment, that is through no fault of mine; because within one hour of receiving the Lords Amendment I went to the Public Bill Office and tabled the manucript Amendment, fearing that this would happen, even though at that stage I did not know what Mr. Speaker's selection would be.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's support on this point. If we cannot deal with the matter in a sensible way, the only alternative will be for the House to adjourn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I want to be as helpful as I can. If the hon. Gentleman can give me the Amendment and allow me to read it to the House, it can be discussed today and voted upon later when we reach it, if selected.

Mr. Graham Page: While the hon. Gentleman is writing out the Amendment, perhaps I can open the debate on the first Amendment in this group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a good idea.

Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that my hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has lodged the Amendment in the Table Office where it now lies. Perhaps inadvertently, he has not a copy of it with him. May we ask the Table Office to produce the Amendment, if you wish to have it read out immediately?
We are in this difficulty. All of us wish to co-operate to deal with the matter tonight. If it cannot be dealt with tonight, we have no alternative but to adjourn to get a definite ruling from Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martin Maddan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we take the Amendment as read?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Amendment has now been handed to me. The Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), is to Amendment No. 429, in line 40 to delete to the end of line 42.
I understand that it was handed into the Table Office this morning, and has been sent to the printer in the ordinary way because there was no indication that it was to be a manuscript Amendment. That is where the difficulty has arisen. Anyway, it can be discussed.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Further to the point of order. The problem illustrates the absurdity of the situation we are now in. It is disgraceful that we should be treated in this way. It was suggested earlier that we should have delayed our proceedings today to enable hon. Members to look at the host of Amendments that we have been discussing before we discussed them. It might seem a curious and unusual procedure, that we should demand the right to read what we are discussing before we discuss it. Is it not about time we came to our senses and gave ourselves an opportunity to read this great mass of Amendments? Cannot we even now terminate our stupid proceedings on the Bill today and show the public the absurd situation the Government have put us in?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think the situation is quite as serious as he makes out. The point is that if the Amendment is now discussed it can be voted on later. Therefore, there is no great tragedy in the situation.

Mr. Graham Page: Lords Amendments Nos. 424 and 432 deal specifically with freemen. It may be convenient to have a separate debate on them rather than to confuse them with the rest of the list of Amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That appears to be the wish of the House.

Mr. Page: Then I shall leave them out of the debate. Otherwise, this group of Amendments deals with the status and dignities of local authorities.
The Government's principal objective in the Amendments is to permit the retention of existing rights and privileges enjoyed by many ancient towns and cities in so far as it is practicable within the framework of the new local government system contained in the Bill. It is proposed to leave out the two present Clauses, Clause 3 and Clause 22, which deal with the conferring of borough status on districts in England and Wales, and to replace them, very significantly extending their substance, by the two new Clauses, which cover the authorities in both England and Wales.
I think that I can summarise the points by saying that there are three elements in the Government's new and wider proposals. First, there is the status of the area, and particularly the matter of borough status which is granted by royal charter. Secondly, there is the right of the chief citizen to use the title "mayor". Thirdly, there are a mass of rights and privileges contained in charters too numerous and varied for me to catalogue now. They range from practical matters such as the ownership of corporate land or the management of markets to the appointment of local officers or dignitaries and so on.
The basic provision in the Government's new proposals is contained in subsection (1) of the new Clause on the preservation of powers, privileges and rights of existing cities and boroughs. Subject to anything contained in a new Royal Charter or to any provision in the Bill, or an order made under the Bill, existing rights and privileges will continue in force in the areas where they now apply.
Earlier in the debate today I was flattered by being called "St. Paul" and

by being described as having been converted on the road to Damascus. I have been converted on this occasion, because what we have adopted here is a reversal of the previous approach to the subject. Instead of saying that existing rights and privileges may be confirmed or re-granted by new charters, we have said in the new Clause that existing rights and privileges will continue to apply at present unless they are overtaken or dealt with in some way. But this general saving does not of itself preserve borough status for any particular area, nor does it preserve certain titles and styles which are granted under the royal prerogative and which we have discussed previously in debates on the subject. For instance, it does not preserve the right of a town to the style "city" or "royal borough". They are granted under letters patent. It does not of itself preserve the title "lord mayor". These styles and titles should be specifically granted.
Borough status and the right of an area to be called a borough will apply only at district level, and the right should be granted by royal charter, as it has been hitherto.
The right to apply for a royal charter will be open to all new districts. We have discussed that previously, when discussing the Clauses which are now overtaken by the new Clauses.
A new district council may petition before 1st April, 1974, for the grant of borough status and for the continuation of any dignity or style which it already enjoys, such as that of "city" or "lord mayor". If Her Majesty indicates that she consents to the retention of these dignities, they will continue in force without a break whether or not the formal instrument has been issued when reorganisation comes into effect. Therefore the continuation of the title will not be held up by the fact that the formalities have not been completed.
The Government Amendments to Clause 4 and Clause 23 give precedence to the chairman of the district council throughout the district. That is whether he is called a mayor or not. Some existing boroughs will be grouped with other authorities to form new districts and in many cases they will not necessarily be the dominant element in the new district.
The very small boroughs in that case may retain their councils as successor parishes. The Boundary Commission, acting under guide lines, will recommend which of those should be successor parishes and retain their dignities.
Following on from what I said about borough status being confined to the new authorities at district level, we are not able to continue borough status at parish level, too. We are proposing that former boroughs who retain their parish or community level should be entitled to adopt the title "town" if they so wish. The council can be called a town council, and the chairman of the town council will be the town mayor. This power to adopt the status of town will not be confined to former boroughs as the new Clause is drawn at present. It will extend to all councils at parish or community level. It will therefore be enjoyed by any small town with a council of its own, whether it was formerly a borough, an urban district or a parish.
But those boroughs which are too big to be likely candidates for parish Government will not retain a separate successor parish status. In such cases the position will depend on whether or not a district itself becomes a borough. If it does acquire borough status and if the existing borough does not retain its own successor parish council, if it is too big for a parish council, the style and privileges of the existing unit become merged in those of the larger borough which has been newly created. One can have only a district borough but not a number of boroughs within the district. But if the district does not decide to apply for borough status, the continuing boroughs, or those that were boroughs before, can continue with a form of borough status within that district.
In that connection there is, first, the general saving for the preservation of charter provisions in those areas where they now apply. Secondly, we propose the new concept of charter trustees to look after what remains of the old borough. These trustees would be the district councillors elected in the area of the former borough who would constitute a separate body corporate, able to hold corporate land and able to elect one of their number to be town mayor for the area of the former borough. Although that area would not have all borough

status, it would retain its dignities. It could even retain its corporate land, its plate and so on, retained by this device of the district councillors for that area being the charter trustees.
10.30 p.m.
I will now sum up, and I apologise if I have rather hurried through these points, but I think I have covered the main points. I sum up in this way. First, we propose that borough status should continue to he enjoyed by Royal Charter and should be granted only to authorities at district level.
Second, there will be machinery for the continuity of existing dignities such as the status of city or the title of City or Lord Mayor.
Third, we propose that, unless some other provision is made in a royal charter or in the Bill or by any order under the Bill, all existing rights and privileges enjoyed in a present borough will continue to apply within the same area as at present.
Fourth, we propose that in all areas which have mayors at present, there will be a mayor in future, either because the district itself becomes a borough or because the town council or the charter trustees have elected a town mayor.
Finally, we are providing for the chairman of a parish or community council to be given an allowance. This power will permit the allowance to be paid to a town mayor elected by charter trustees.
Those are the points covered by this series of Amendments. To a great extent, they were included in previous Clauses now overtaken by the new Clauses, but the new Clauses have extended them and given greater explanation of the position, and have been carefully drafted so that they will operate well in practice.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move the manuscript Amendment in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to delete lines 40. 41 and 42 of new Clause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, not to move it. The hon. Member may read it and discuss it but not move it.

Mr. Oakes: And vote on it later, I take it, when we come to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is selected.

Mr. Oakes: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are back where we were. May I raise a point of order? The difficulty is that we on this side are forced either to vote against new Clause L, which we do not want to do, or to vote against the little bit of it with which we disagree. This is our difficulty, because of the timetable, not for any other reason, as we have moved as fast as we can. I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you cannot say whether any Amendment will be selected, since that is for Mr. Speaker, but I must emphasise the impossible position into which hon. Members are put. I am about to speak to an Amendment, and you now tell the House that it may well not be voted on.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not in such difficulty as that. He may discuss the Amendment now, as you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is only a question of waiting till tomorrow to see whether he will vote the whole Clause down or vote on his Amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has got itself into a ludicrous situation. I respectfully submit that if this Amendment is not to be selected tomorrow by Mr. Speaker, then, since we are discussing Lords Amendments, it is out of order for us to discuss it now. How can we have a debate tonight on an Amendment which may not be selected tomorrow? I submit that, if it is in order for us to discuss it, it must be selected.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is time the Chair said a word on this matter. It is not nearly as bad as hon. Members fear. The discussion may go on perfectly well now. The probability, in view of what Mr. Speaker said, is that he will select the Amendment, and I myself shall have something to say in his ear in that direction. Hon. Members need have no great fear on this score.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel that the House ought to address its mind to the fact that we had the same sort of trouble in 1963, when London was being carved

up. In the last 10 years, we have learned what a terrible mistake was made in 1963, and I warn the House that we are in danger of doing exactly the same now. Local government is far more important than the playing of silly games like this tonight. I hope that the Government will take this away and come back at a proper hour to discuss it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will there not be an opportunity for a vote tomorrow, when either the Amendment or the Clause can he voted on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly true that the Clause will be voted on tomorrow. It is extremely probable, in view of what the hon. Gentleman tells me of his discussions with Mr. Speaker, that he will be able to vote on the Amendment also.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is the hon. Member not in exactly the same position as I? I had an Amendment on the Paper to be voted on tomorrow.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order. I am not wasting time because an important House of Commons principle is involved. I appreciate that you are doing your best in this unfortunate situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the House is in an impossible situation. In a number of years in the House I have never before met the situation in which the House is discussing Lords Amendments and is told that it can discuss a manuscript Amendment which Mr. Speaker may or may not select tomorrow. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding your desire to assist the House and the Government to get their legislation, and your understanding approach to what my hon. Friend said, that, nevertheless, it is a constitutional point of some importance. Either the Amendment is selected and can be discussed or it is not selected and cannot be discussed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will not object to my intervening here. The Amendment can be selected for discussion and later selected for voting. Those are two quite


different things and that happens again and again.

Mr. Maddan: On a point of order. Do I understand that by the time we come to vote on the Lords Amendment we shall know whether the manuscript Amendment has been selected for discussion? If that is so, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is not in the dilemma which I can understand that he fears.

Mr. Oakes: That would depend upon what time we finish tonight. I do not propose to waste any more time of the House. I appreciate that you are endeavouring to assist us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the difficulty in which we find ourselves.
The problem with the new Clause lies in subsection 6 (b). The Opposition said both in Committee and in the House that the old Clause 3 was inadequate in many respects in that the status, various titles and dignities of boroughs which had existed for hundreds of years might well be inadvertently eliminated. Many hon. Members were worried at their possible disappearance. The Clause eliminates many of those problems, but in doing so the House of Lords has introduced an entirely new set of circumstances which seem to be totally irrational. It has introduced the concept of what a mayor should he. It is suggesting that any parish or community council can at a meeting decide that it will call its chairman a major and its deputy chairman a deputy mayor.
The position differs for a district, which is a much larger authority, whether it be a metropolitan or a non-metropolitan district. A number of procedures have to be gone through, whether or not that district was previously a borough, before its chairman can be called mayor. For a start it must have a specially convened meeting to decide whether it will be a borough and whether its chairman should be called mayor. At that special meeting there must be a two-thirds majority of those present to decide whether the district is to become a borough and have a mayor. A petition must then be presented to Her Majesty and, acting on the advice of Her Privy Council, she may then grace that district with the title of mayor. A district has to go through many stages.

I do not object to that procedure, although I should have thought that with local government reorganisation the red tape could have been cut and the process made speedier. But any parish or community council at any meeting—not only a special meeting—may decide, not by a two-thirds majority, that its chairman be called the town mayor of the parish and the deputy chairman called deputy town mayor. Their lordships have taken the dignity of the mayoralty to absurdity and have stretched this ancient and dignified title for which districts have to fight into something that may be obtained flippantly and easily by a parish or community council at any meeting, if it so resolves.
Let us consider the instance of a district in which such a parish is contained and which does not opt to become a borough, and therefore does not have a mayor of its own. It might have a succession of what one might call petty mayors, town mayors within the district, wearing chains and holding the status and dignity of mayor. There would be the difficult situation that the chairman of the district would be only a chairman while the chairmen of the parish councils would be mayors.
A much more difficult situation occurs if the district decides to become a borough and the parishes decide to have town mayors. There would then be a mayor of the borough, that is, the district, on a charter from the Queen, and mayors of the parishes, both called mayors. In the eyes of the public, the fact that one was called town mayor and the other the mayor of a borough would have little significance. Indeed, in many areas the town mayor would be thought to have greater status and dignity than the borough mayor.
An even worse situation could occur. This takes us near the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine, for there are moves afoot to call the new metropolitan district by the name of a parish which is also the name of an ancient hall within the district. This is being done to avoid jealousy among the various large authorities making up the district. This is absurdity heaped on absurdity. The mayor of the district will have exactly the same title as the mayor of the parish, if the parish should opt to have a town mayor of its own.
There seems to be no reason for this insertion by another place which would give the status and dignity of the mayoralty, which we all expect to be at a certain level, to any parish council. If their lordships were proposing that the title should go, for example, to existing boroughs converting themselves into parishes, that would be understandable. I do not say that I should entirely agree, but I could understand that. But that is not what the Amendment says. It says that any parish, no matter what its size or circumstances, by simple resolution at any time may have a mayor.
It is an absurd situation. I am fortified in my opinion by a letter that other hon. Members and I have received from the Rural District Councils Association. Hon. Members are bombarded with literature from outside organisations, but this is not just any organisation. It is a local government organisation and it is that association which, apart from the Parish Councils Association itself, is most closely associated with parish councils.
10.45 p.m.
The Association clearly says that although it has no objection to a parish or community council calling itself a town, if it so wishes, and the parish meeting being called the town meeting, if it so wishes, it can see nothing but difficulties and confusion for the inhabitants of the area in having a town mayor for a parish and a mayor for the district in which that parish is contained.
The Association is wrong in referring to Clause 241(6)(b); it must mean Clause 238(6)(b). In view of the confusion which we had earlier, I do not blame it for making that mistake. The Association urges that that paragraph of the new Clause be deleted. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think seriously about this matter. We are with him in the valiant attempts which have been made in the other place to try to straighten out and clear up the old Clause 3 and make it into a workable and acceptable Clause, but for some strange reason their Lordships have added this absurd extension of the mayoralty to any parish anywhere. If things go well later, I shall seek to ask the House for this particular part of Clause 238 to be deleted.

Dr. Glyn: I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has just said. I have a similar Amendment down, but for slightly different motives. I was worried that some authorities might find themselves in difficulty in having to rely on the second rather than the first new Clause.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for carrying out the undertaking which he gave to this House before the Recess that he would endeavour to introduce in another place legislation which would allow the ancient boroughs to retain some of their privileges and status. However, I am extremely worried about the drafting of the Bill, so I should like to put a point, of which I have already given notice, which is not so very different from that put forward by the hon. Member for Widnes.
If a district applies successfully for a charter to convert itself into a borough and to have a mayor, what will be the position of other parts of the area which also wish to retain their status and mayors?
For instance, in my district there are two ancient boroughs, Maidenhead and Windsor. If the district elects to become a borough and have mayoral status, I am not sure under which machinery the boroughs would have to apply, if they wanted to do so. The boroughs may not want to do so; but, if they do, I am not clear about the position. Looking carefully at the drafting of these new Clauses, they would not be able to do so as parishes, because they would be too small, their populations being 24,000 and 30,000 respectively. They would have to apply to incorporate the two mayors of the areas in the same charter. There would appear to be no other machinery in the Bill for doing it.
I want my right hon. Friend to address himself to the questions: where a district becomes a borough and has a mayor, can two other former mayoral offices exist? If so, what is the machinery for doing it? It was made perfectly clear in the other place, and I think my right hon. Friend at the beginning of his speech said, that the status which existed would continue to exist. However, I am not clear how that can be preserved under the Bill.
It may be that the wishes of the electorate will eventually be that there should


be one mayor of a district, and no sub-mayors. At the same time, I think it is right and proper that opportunities should be given to the ancient boroughs to have mayors if they desire.
I should like my right hon. Friend to make clear the machinery by which they can achieve this. Do towns with populations between 20,000 and 30,000, such as Windsor and Maidenhead, have one charter, or do they apply separately, do they apply this rather difficult machinery, or do they do nothing?
As to Lords Amendment No. 35, which continues the Royal prerogative, I have always maintained that there is no necessity to insert such a statement into a Bill because that prerogative exists already, and I am quite certain that the Royal prerogative would never be used to usurp the rights of Members of this House.

Mr. Cormack: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment or two, but I believe I was the first to raise this issue. I did so in Committee on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) who was not on the Committee but was in the unique position of having in his constituency several boroughs created in 1958, and he had noticed how greatly valued were their dignities and civic insignia, and how great was local civic pride in them. On his behalf I pressed in Committee the case of such localities, and my right hon. Friend was very gracious in listening to the arguments. When we returned to the attack on Report he gave an assurance that this would be looked at, and that something would be done in another place.
On behalf of my hon. Friend and myself I would like to thank him very much for what has been done. I think legitimate local aspirations and desires, and real and deep feelings, have been recognised. As the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has pointed out, there may, perhaps, be a flaw in the drafting. Nevertheless, I thank my right hon. Friend very much for the spirit in which he has accepted our points, and for the changes which have been made.

Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House may I deal with the points which have been raised, particularly that on which, I hope, we shall be able to see

a manuscript Amendment in print tomorrow? I have taken the gist of it. It is, as I understand it, to delete paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of the Lords new Clause as coming after Clause 238.
This is new; the whole of subsection (6) is new. Its genesis lies in the desire of the small boroughs which will not be districts on their own after reorganisation to retain their identity, and their existing civic dignities. The proposals contained in this subsection (6) are not confined to the existing boroughs. We did not see how we could confine it to local authorities which formed certain classes before reform. The subsection allows a parish council in England, or a community council in Wales, by simple resolution, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) pointed out, to adopt the status "town" for the area of the parish or community We thought it must follow from that that it would have the right to adopt the style of "town mayor" for the chairman of the parish or community council, and use the style "town meeting" for the parish meeting or community meeting.
That power applies only to parishes or communities which are under separate councils and, for example, to parishes which are too small to have a parish council or communities which are too small to have a community council. The effect of this innovation is to permit the ex-boroughs and ex-urban districts which have councils or parish councils, or any parish or community which considers itself to have the character of a town, to adopt the new statutory status by its own choice, but it is only if it adopts the status of a town.
I will consider the matter overnight and decide whether we have gone too far. My difficulty is that one would have to put a prohibition in if one did not want a parish, which wanted to call itself a town, to have a town mayor. That would be a difficult choice to make. One would have to put a prohibition in the Bill to the effect that one could not call one's chairman a mayor.

Mr. Oakes: I do not think there is the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman envisages. If he put after "community", the words "Prior to 1st April, 1974, a borough", surely that would meet the point. There are difficulties when one wants to merge two authorities and


create a unified whole in having them still retaining their separate mayors, but that is another point.

Mr. Page: I am obliged for those suggestions. We shall reach only the point of dividing on the original Amendment tonight, if that is thought fit, and we shall have time to look at the matter overnight.
The point was raised about the position of a borough which has merged in a district which has applied for borough status by a new charter, and whether either of the boroughs which have merged retain any borough dignities. If the district has not applied for a charter, then it is clear in the Bill, and we have set out the rights of the previously constituted boroughs to retain their mayoralties. If the district has applied for a charter, then the only way in which the dignities of the merged boroughs can be retained is within the new charter. That is the only machinery by which it could be done.

Dr. Glyn: May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that it is perfectly possible and proper to exercise that machinery?

Mr. Page: I cannot give any assurance as to what may be in the charter. The district will petition Her Majesty for certain rights and dignities under the charter in its new status as a borough, and it will be a matter for the constituent members of the new district to decide what petition to put before Her Majesty. That is as far as I can go. I am grateful to hon. Members for the points which have been raised within the new Clause. I think that I have covered them all.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

TERM OF OFFICE AND RETIREMENT OF COUNCILLORS

Lords Amendment: No. 37, in page 6, line 1, leave out from beginning to "in" and insert "Subject to subsection (6A) below, a non-metropolitan district council may".

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move. That

this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 38, 77 and 78.

Mr. Carlisle: Although this is not quite a drafting Amendment, it meets a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) on Report, and ensures that a non-metropolitan district council must exercise an option on the method of election within 10 years of previously exercising the option.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 39, divide Clause 7 into two Clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) and (2); and the second to consist of subsections (3) to (10) inclusive.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to consider Lords Amendment No. 79.

Mr. Carlisle: This is the last of a group of drafting Amendments. The purpose is to divide into two what had become an over-long Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Further consideration of the Lords Amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Lords Amendments to be further considered tomorrow.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 2

REPORTS TO BE MADE AND RECORDS TO BE KEPT BY LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line I, leave out Clause 2.

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to the Order this day, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Whitehead.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 16.

Division No. 347.]
AYES
[11.2 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Paget, R. T.


Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurie


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hattersley, Roy
Pendry, Tom


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pentland, Norman


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Holland, Philip
Perry, Ernest G.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Horam, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Benyon, W.
Hordern, Peter
Prescott, John


Biffen, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bishop, E. S.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, William (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Hunt, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Janner, Greville
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rost, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rowlands, Ted


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Scott, Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne]


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Sillars, James


Coombs, Derek
Knox, David
Silverman, Julius


Cormack, Patrick
Lamborn, Harry
Simeons, Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Lane, David
Skinner, Dennis


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Latham, Arthur
Spence, John


Crowder, F. P.
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Leonard, Dick
Stainton, Keith


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Dalyell, Tam
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Eadie, Alex
Luce, R. N.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Ellis, Tom
McCrindle, R. A.
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncastar)


Ewing, Harry
Madel, David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eyre, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Farr, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ward, Dame Irene


Faulds, Andrew
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wellbeloved, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mayhsw, Christopher
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Fookes, Miss Janet
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ford, Ben
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fox, Marcus
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Gardner, Edward
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Worsley, Marcus


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)




Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilbert, Dr. John
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Terry Davis and


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Oakos, Gordon
Dr. Tom Stuttaford.


Golding, John
Osborn, John





NOES


Biggs-Davison, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. R.
Woodnutt, Mark


Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry



Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Martin Maddan and


Gurden, Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. John Stokes.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

EMPLOYMENT (UNFAIR DISMISSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fox.]

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am happy to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the sad fact that the vast majority of those who are unfairly dismissed and who bring their cases before tribunals fail to receive any compensation whatsoever, and that those who are compensated very often receive derisory sums. Nor, so far as I know, has any person received the potential two years' compensation provided for by the Industrial Relations Act. This is a peculiarly unhappy circumstance as this part of the Act was, in the main, uncontroversial and could, in the main, do good. It is the sole part of the Act, probably, which could have a positive function, but it has proved a sad disappointment. The purpose of this debate is to raise the matter and ventilate it, and to invite the Government to investigate the circumstances in which these sections of the Act have failed so very badly.
Section 24 provides that an employee who is dismissed shall be presumed to have been dismissed unfairly. That is its effect. The employee who is covered by the section shall have the right not to be dismissed unfairly. That section states:
In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show … the reason (or, if there was more than one, the principal reason) …
and that it was a reason which, in broad terms, justified the dismissal by making it fair. So the burden of proof rests on the employer.
I raised this matter previously, some three months ago, when this part of the Act had been in operation for only some four months. We on this side did not know the figures, but they were provided by the Minister, who put them in a somewhat odd way but one which did give results. The Minister said:
Rather over 20 per cent. of the cases reaching tribunals so far have ended without recom-

mendations for re-engagement or compensation.
That was a rather charming, if misleading, way of saying that nearly 80 per cent. of all cases failed, and nearly 80 per cent. means that there is a failure rate probably higher than in any other court or tribunal there has ever been in this country. Therefore, the legislation cannot be working properly, particularly when the burden of proof allegedly rests on the employer.

Mr. Robert Redmond: Would it not have improved the working of the Act if the trade unions had been prepared to take cases before the tribunals on behalf of their members, and would it not have helped further if they had done so quickly, instead of procrastinating and leaving members of unions 28 days out of time? I can give cases of that happening.

Mr. Janner: The trouble is that cases have to be brought before the expiry of four weeks. After four weeks, the conciliation officer comes in, but cases come on after two months, generally after the end of the employment, and at the end of that stage the employee is unable to prove anything like two years' loss, and instead of the tribunal then adjourning the case and enabling the man to come back and claim more money, it makes a final order, in the course of which it tries to assess in this 80 per cent. of cases. The issue here is twofold—first, the 80 per cent. failure rate and, second, the fact that very little money is received by those who succeed. There is no question of lack of speed—in the main it comes on too quickly.
The Minister explained the failure rate in these words:
I do not mean to be offensive, but I use the term for want of better words—there are 'try-on' cases.
In any litigation people try things on, but not 80 per cent. and certainly not when they come forward without the help of lawyers and on occasion without the help of their unions. They often face employers who are legally represented and a tribunal which resents legal representation because lawyers take too long. For the tribunal the quicker it comes on and goes off the better.
I have no doubt that it tries to do justice, but it does not succeed, because


this failure rate shows that this part of the Act is a fraudulent mirage. It produces false visions of fairness to employees unfairly dismissed. Nearly 80 per cent. of these cases result in total failure and the remainder usually get a very small proportion of the compensation which they reasonably hoped for.
Parliament did not, without a Division, produce the sum of £4,160 because it thought that no one would get it. It did so because it believed that there should be a two-year cushion against disaster. It has not worked in that way, and this is not because of employees who are "trying it on". It is because something has gone radically wrong with this potentially advantageous portion of the Act.
When I suggested last time that this was due to a lack of legal representation, the Minister said:
Legal proceedings at the tribunal are in general kept informal.
Fair enough.
… it is comparatively rare that barristers and solicitors are employed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August 1972; Vol. 842, c. 845, 851.]
I do not know the figures. Perhaps they can be produced. I understand that, although it is comparatively rare for lawyers to be employed by the employees, it is comparatively common for them to be used by the employers.
The second reason for the failure rate is that, although theoretically the burden of proof rests on the employer, in fact it rests on the employee. When the employer has to give a reason for dismissal, he has only to say misconduct, lack of capability or qualifications, or redundancy.
Section 24 (6) says:
Subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section, the determination of the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair having regard to the reason shown by the employer, shall depend on whether in the circumstances he acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing his employee; and that question shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.
Put in ordinary English language, that means that if it was fair to treat the reason as sufficient, it is fair; and if it was unfair, it is unfair. There is nothing in the section about the burden of proof. Though the burden of proof may rest on the tribunal in showing reason, there is

considerable doubt where the burden lies in showing that it was a "sufficient" reason.
Is it for the employer to show that he acted reasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason? I would hope so. And the section should say so, but it does not. Or is it for the employee to show that the employer acted unreasonably? In practice, I suggest that this may be the reason why we see this staggering and unfair failure rate in regard to employees who seek compensation under the Act.
No other explanation has been provided by the Minister. He has pointed to the fact that some cases are settled on the way. On 2nd August we were given a figure of some 1,900 cases, half of which had been processed and less than half of which actually went before the tribunal. He could have put the matter round the other way and said that nearly half had reached the tribunal without being settled; in other words, some 950 cases had reached trial, after only four months of operation of this part of the Act. Another three months have now elapsed, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide figures which are at least twice as good. In the first four months there should have been fewer cases before the tribunal than happened in the next three months.
The importance of this matter is vitally connected with the sad state of employment in the country as a whole. My constituency of Leicester has suffered unemployment at a level unprecedented since the 1930s. What happens now is that when an employee comes before the tribunal he has often been out of work for two months, and when there is high unemployment in his area the tribunal does not say "Go away. Here is what you have lost so far. Come back if you do not get other work." It makes a final order. In a period of unemployment the situation is never satisfactory because it can never be known when the employee will get other work. It is not good enough to say that damages are assessed on the same basis as in civil cases involving damages. That is not the way in which it should be done. Here we have a two-year period, and the figure of £4,160 is compensation at the maximum of £40 per week for two years in broad terms. Included in it are other factors which have caused loss as a result.
Therefore, I hope it will be recognised that this area of legislation, legislation which could have beneficial results, is not providing the benefits which it could and should provide. Instead of defending the situation and saying that many people have been helped who would not otherwise have been helped, the Minister should say, "First, we must provide more figures".
I was assured earlier in the year that the computer would churn out results by the autumn. Well, the leaves are now withering on the trees. I have the passage marked:
I do not wish to be held to a date, but I hope that it will be in the autumn.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): Read on.

Mr. Janner: It continues:
It may be somewhat later than that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August 1972; Vol. 842, c. 846.]
That was a wise addition and one that has proved to have been justified The autumn is here and the leaves are withering. When does the Minister hope that there will be full figures of the number of cases which have come before the tribunals, of the natures of the awards, of how much people have been awarded, of who has been represented, and whether this staggering failure rate is being continued?
Second, in so far as the failure rate is more than 50 per cent. it cannot be justified where the burden of proof genuinely falls upon the employer. There should be an investigation into why this is happening. If it transpires that it is because the burden of proof is not properly stated, this could be changed.
Third, there should be an inquiry into the level of compensation and as to why there should be the figure of £4,160 as a potential which is never reached, when it should be a signal to those who are earning £40 a week or more, of whom there are plenty, that there is hope for them if they are dismissed unfairly.
I hope that the Minister will deal with these questions, that he will understand that there is great and sincere concern about the failure of this part of the Act

to work properly, and that he will hold out hope to those unfairly dismissed that they will be fairly dealt with under this part of the legislation.

11.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) has once again shown his very proper interest in this part of the Act. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I believe that some of that which I may say tonight will show that the words he used in describing the Act as a fraudulent mirage are unjustified.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed concern about the proportion of unsuccessful complaints of unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act and about the level of compensation awards. In particular, he is concerned about awards in the case of people who are unemployed when their cases are heard by industrial tribunals.
This was very much the burden of the hon. and learned Gentleman's song earlier this year, and he continues to be so concerned. These are complex matters and it is easy, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, to use figures in different ways so that they appear at the time to mean different things. If at the end of the debate there are matters which seem to the hon. and learned Gentleman less clear that they should be, I shall be only too ready to discuss them with him.
I want, first, to quote some figures to help get this so-called "success rate" of unfair dismissal claims into perspective. As the hon. and learned Member is no doubt aware, all complaints of unfair dismissal made to the tribunals are passed initially to conciliation officers of my Department for them to see whether there is any possibility of their promoting a voluntary settlement of the matter without the need for a tribunal hearing. In the first seven months' operation of the provisions—from 28th February to 29th September—the conciliation officers received a total of 4,688 applications. In 720, or 15 per cent. of them, they helped the parties to reach a voluntary settlement and 1,295, or 28 per cent. of the applications were withdrawn at this stage.
Complaints which are not settled or withdrawn at the conciliation stage go to


a tribunal hearing, unless they are abandoned in the interim. Figures for tribunals' hearings up to the end of September are not yet available, but in the first five months of the new jurisdiction—from 28th February to 28th July—they heard 507 unfair dismissal complaints. Twenty-seven per cent. of these succeeded and the remainder were dismissed. In 15 per cent. of the unsuccessful cases the tribunals found that the applications were out of scope of their jurisdiction. That is something that does happen. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman had not fully taken it into account.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, in the light of these figures, that the overall success rate of unfair dismissal complaints cannot be judged solely in terms of those which succeed at tribunal hearings. Account must be taken of the effects of conciliation; firstly, in regard to the number of settlements promoted at that stage and, secondly, in regard to the fact that there are numbers of complainants who have had the benefit of the conciliation officers' guidance but who, nevertheless, insist on taking out-of-scope or extremely weak cases to hearings. This is, of course, something that they are entitled to do, but such cases do have the effect of swelling the proportion of unsuccessful cases. It must also be remembered that, not infrequently, cases are abandoned after the conciliation stage but before a hearing because the parties have themselves reached a mutually agreeable settlement of the matter.
In so far as the level of compensation for unfair dismissal is concerned, let us look first at voluntary settlements reached at the conciliation stage. An analysis of a sample of about 500 such cases shows that 55 per cent. were for sums of less than £100, 36 per cent. were for sums between £100 and £500, and 6 per cent. were for amounts between £1,000 and £4,000.
Turning now to the awards of compensation made by the tribunals, I can tell the House that an analysis of their awards in the first five months of the new jurisdiction shows that 36 per cent. were for amounts under £100, 49 per cent. were for between £100 and £500, 8 per cent. for sums between £500 and £1,000

and 7 per cent. for sums between £1,000 and £4,000.
It is clear that a majority of the compensation awards are for sums under £500. I admit that in the context of the overall limit of £4,160 they appear fairly small. But, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, compensation is assessed by the tribunals on similar principles to the assessment of damages under common law. The tribunals are required to award such a sum as they consider just and equitable having regard to the past and probable future loss sustained by the applicant and the extent to which that loss was attributable to the employer's action. So far there is no real evidence to suggest that the tribunals have been applying these principles ungenerously.
It should not be assumed that employees who are unfairly dimissed invariably suffer substantial loss. In many cases that have come before the tribunals the complainant's losses have been extremely small. For example, many have found new jobs quickly at a comparable or better rate of pay so that the tribunals' awards in these cases are mainly for the loss of statutory protection against redundancy or unfair dismissal for the first two years of the new employment. On the other hand, there have been cases where the tribunals have found that the complainant's past or prospective loss—this is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is so rightly concerned about—is considerable, having regard, for example, to age and the chances of finding further employment, and they have, in fact, awarded substantial sums in several cases.
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about the question of what evidence can be brought as to prospects of future employment. This is a matter which we are looking at, so that complainants' rights in these matters, if it is possible to do so, may be even more clearly known to them than they are. I hope that that will give the hon. and learned Gentleman pleasure.

Mr. Janner: It does, very much. But can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Department is also looking into the possibility of giving the tribunals the right, or insisting that they exercise the right, to adjourn cases where a person has not obtained other employment before his successful case reaches the tribunal?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I will deal with that point. I think that I dealt with it to a large extent in August.
The problem there, apart from any other, is one of case load. It is a little too early to know just how substantial a case load there is. It may well be that there are other priorities before the one the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. I am referring to the two-year rule and so on.
I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the awards in quite a number of cases are well above the maximum award envisaged in the last Administration's Bill. I should have thought it would be common ground that a relatively generous maximum award to cover really unfortunate cases was highly desirable. I would draw attention to the inflexibility and unfairness of a system of compensation which involves the application of a rigid scale rate without regard to individual circumstances.
The hon. and learned Member has made much of the fact that no one has yet received the maximum amount of compensation awardable under the Act—£4,160. Although it is true to say that no tribunal has yet awarded the maximum sum, he will be interested to know that the maximum has been exceeded in at least one settlement reached by conciliation. Nevertheless, I would stress that in the Government's view the maximum is a substantial one that provides the tribunals with ample scope to compensate the individual whose past or prospective losses are really high—for example, where an individual is unlikely to obtain fresh employment for some considerable time because of his age or the nature of his occupation.
Apart from lost wages, the tribunals take account of a variety of other losses—loss of pension rights, loss of status, loss of fringe benefits, such as accommodation or perhaps a car, and, as I have already mentioned, loss of security in regard to future redundancy or unfair dismissal. As in common law suits, the dismissed employee has a responsibility to mitigate his loss. Moreover, compensation may be reduced where the employee is found to have provoked or contributed to his dismissal. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with this provision.
He tends perhaps to see dismissals only in terms of black and white.

Mr. Janner: With respect, the tribunal has got to decide. I do not disagree with the provision of a maximum of £4,160. What I say is that it is no good having a maximum if it is never reached or if it is very seldom that anyone gets anywhere near to it. It is an unreal provision.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I cannot accept that a dismissal is either totally fair or totally unfair. One can go into a long argument about this. One can use the analogy of a husband deserting a wife, and so on, but it would not be profitable if we were to argue on those lines. The blame does not necessarily rest only on one side in these cases.
The hon. and learned Member seems to think that tribunals should award two years' pay to most of the people who are unemployed at the time their cases are heard, or else that such complainants should receive an interim award and have their cases adjourned for a further award or awards if unemployment continues. Section 118 of the Act does not contemplate such a procedure. This is a matter which it would be difficult to deal with at the present time, in view of the present case load.
The hon. and learned Member has dealt with a number of other matters, but time prevents my dealing with them, for he has covered a lot of ground. But I would say what I said on the last occasion when we debated this matter. If he feels that there is an element of unfairness in tribunals' awards to unemployed applicants, the best course would be to prevail upon more of his trade union friends to make their valuable knowledge and experience available as lay members of tribunals or by representing members at hearings. This could go a long way to dealing with a position which he regards as unsatisfactory in regard to legal representation. The voice and help of an experienced trade union member could be absolutely invaluable on these occasions to the complainant. I hope he will bear that in mind.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and I can discuss this matter, and if lie can show real flaws in the case, anything that he says will be examined, because we want this to work. We believe that this provi-


sion has given assistance to the individual who has complained and that it is working well.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.